backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by Gzus666.. on Sep 17 at 12:39 PM

iPhone developers are becoming alarmed with Apple's closed box policy

Apple's App Store, which sells programs for its iPhone and iPod Touch, has been declared an instant success, with over 10 million downloads of the over 500 applications available on site.  Part of the charm of the system was that it allowed independent developers freedom to get in the sandbox and build something.  Many hoped this was a sign that Apple was finally relaxing its tight closed-box policies that allowed Windows computers to surpass Macs in the first place.

However, confirmation from Apple that there was a "kill switch" built in, which could be used to remotely disable users applications.  In Apple's original statements, it promised to use to weed out programs that violated Apple's terms of service, which it said consisted of abusive and inappropriate applications. 

While some rejected applications, such as the short lived "Whoopie Cushion" app, could be construed to be offensive or have the potential for abuse, Apple has issued many more rejections to companies with legitimate products that might outcompete Apple's own software offerings.

For example, most recently a developer created a new app called Podcaster.  This application allows users to subscribe, manage, stream and download podcasts directly from an iPhone or iPod touch.  The application was unceremoniously rejected, which led the irritated developer to publish the letter of rejection.  The rejection states:

Apple Rep says: Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes.

Such a draconian policy is tough on developers, not just because it limits them, but because it breeds an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, in which there well-intentioned application might be rejected for unconsidered violations.  States iPhone developer DaringFireball on the issue, "If you only find out at the end of the development process that your app has been rejected — not for a technical problem that you can address but because Apple deems the entire concept to be out of bounds — then who is going to put serious time and talent into an iPhone app?"

Fraser Speirs, another loyal Apple developer, is so outraged he quit new development for the app store and is leading a push among developers to force Apple to adopt policy changes.  Among his demands are clear exclusion rules, an App Store evangelist, and the ability to get pre-authorized before application development.

Developers who made $30M USD in application revenue for Apple in July are starting to feel like Apple just doesn't care.  In the end, Mr. Speirs and other developers investing their time and money into applications development agree -- Apple must show its intent to change to its developers or risk losing them.

Outrage from even the staunchest supporters within the Mac community has been quite fierce – a Mac Rumors thread on the topic has garnered 17 pages of responses.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why does..
By superunknown98 on 9/15/2008 12:07:45 PM , Rating: 5
Microsoft get so much resentment for including and making IE the default browser, and even allows 3rd party browsers to install. But Apple can deny app's on their Iphone becasue it is considered competition?

How can Symantec take Microsoft to court over the vista kernel, and this behavior from apple is considered just?

Someone tell me why this should not go to court?




RE: Why does..
By Gzus666 on 9/15/2008 12:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
Because MS had such a large part of the market share, they were the tallest head that got hit. Not that I condone the behavior, but MS had it's share of snafus in the past along similar lines, and some could consider worse in cases. They learned after getting hammered about it, Apple will eventually learn when the backlash starts. Honeymoon is over it seems, now people see Apple for what it is, MS 10 years ago.


RE: Why does..
By quiksilvr on 9/15/2008 12:43:48 PM , Rating: 5
Their endless Mac vs. PC commercials claiming that Apple is switching so many users and how much more open and liberal they are with Justin in his casual shirt and jeans and John in his conservative suit and tie, but it turns out you are hypocrites, shunning away competition. It's no wonder you have less than 10% of the PC market; you close away your OS and overprice your products like crazy it ceases to be funny. I hope in time they'll learn just like Microsoft did that you can't screw over your consumers, it's gonna bite you in the end. Karma's a bitch, ain't it?


RE: Why does..
By MonkeyPaw on 9/15/2008 1:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget that in those days Windows was hit with what seemed like weekly malware attacks. It caused MS to reassign people to the XP patch team, which impacted Vista's launch date. Apple needs to be wary of who they piss off. e-oppression can bring out the worst in the software community.


RE: Why does..
By therealnickdanger on 9/15/2008 12:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
Everybody hates #1.


RE: Why does..
By the goat on 9/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why does..
By the goat on 9/15/2008 12:41:13 PM , Rating: 1
P.S. my post is not designed to defend Apple or MS. Personally I hate them both.


RE: Why does..
By 306maxi on 9/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why does..
By the goat on 9/15/2008 1:05:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Since when has the iPhone OS been promoted as a closed OS? The Apple ads have said a lot of different things but nothing about it having a closed OS. That's a crock of poop.


I would love for you to post an example ad where Apple says (or even remotely implies) they provide an open platform.


RE: Why does..
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/15/2008 1:26:51 PM , Rating: 5
You're both right...

The Apple ads neither imply that its an open platform, nor do they promote it as a closed OS.

Rather they make sweeping statements like the App store makes it the "funnest" phone/iPod ever or show iPods playing all sorts of applications.

Is a closed platform the "funnest" one ever? Is a bunch of selected applications, trying to fool customers into thinking the iPhone is the equivalent of a personal computer in terms of software?? Its all very ambiguous, and depends on who you ask.

Really if you think of its thats the genius of the Apple commercials... they're not factual and don't make any fallacious statements that they can be nailed down on, namely they simply emotionally praise Apple products and admonish competitors products and features in equally emotional terms. Sure they might say the Windows crashed, but they give no details about how it crashed just that windows is "depressed that he crashed". Genius (or diabolical) advertising!


RE: Why does..
RE: Why does..
By 306maxi on 9/15/2008 9:04:06 PM , Rating: 1
I never said they promoted it as being an open OS. You were the one who said they promote it as being a closed OS which is clearly not the case!


RE: Why does..
By inighthawki on 9/15/2008 9:49:38 PM , Rating: 5
"(though MS has started laying the ground work to remove these abilities)"

Can you explain to me how that is true in ANY aspect? Over the past couple years, MS has made numerous releases that target mroe and more developers to make their own stuff, including, and very importantly, FREE versions of visual studio, intended to give new-comers the ability to start programming. Making IE the default browser because they made it, or WMP11 the default media player because they made it, doesn't mean they are trying to get people to hate everything else. As with every other software company, they keepimproving their software, and want more people to use what it has to offer. Many people would GROAN about not having such stuff preinstalled.

And what does that say about apple? safari? itunes? last i checked, that software, among a lot of other software, comes preinstalled in the OS. Should we file anti-trust regulation because they include this stuff and make it harder to developers to program for their OS? They have less browser and media player options than on windows, yet bundling this software is considered a perfectly OK practice.

People need to get their heads where they belong...


RE: Why does..
By Visual on 9/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why does..
By kelmon on 9/17/2008 7:09:09 AM , Rating: 4
Let's get through this quickly:

Is there another way to install applications on an iPod Touch/iPhone?

Yes, but it is not sanctioned by Apple and requires the user to "jailbreak" their device. This is not considered as an "alternative" - this is hacking.

Does Apple stop you from installing competing applications?

Apparently, yes. This is anti-competitive behavior in anyone's definition. Apple, as the controller of the iPhone platform, have rejected an application that complied with their guidelines for no other reason than it does something that their own application does (which, incidentally, isn't true).

Should Apple be forced to sell the application?

If it complies with their published development guidelines, yes. If Microsoft prevented the installation of Firefox then there would be utter uproar. This is no different.


RE: Why does..
By kelmon on 9/17/2008 7:01:59 AM , Rating: 2
This should go to court and, I suspect, it will. Just give it a bit of time since a case needs to be built first.


Monopoly?
By chalupa on 9/15/2008 12:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Can't developers sue apple on the grounds of monopolistic behaviour and anticompetitive practice? Seems like this case fits the bill.




RE: Monopoly?
By Hare on 9/15/2008 12:43:53 PM , Rating: 3
Apple doesn't have a monopoly and they are allowed to decide what to run on their platform. The situation would be different if Apple was the only one providing mobile phones (or OS). That's why MS has been in trouble (real monopoly).

Luckily developers also have the choice to develope for other platforms without these draconian policies (Windows Mobile, Symbian & Google).

This is one of the reasons why I have a symbian phone. I can download apps where I want, when I want and I can do anything I want to do without a big brother going through every single application with a magnifier glass in search of competing apps.


RE: Monopoly?
By Spivonious on 9/15/2008 12:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
MS is the only one providing desktop OSes?


RE: Monopoly?
By Hare on 9/15/2008 1:53:56 PM , Rating: 3
Obviously no, but they have a huge market share and can use their position to do pretty much what they want. Think about it this way, a consumer goes to a computer store and wants to buy a computer. Basically he will be offered different boxes all running Windows -> choices are quite limited.

Of course there are Macs and Linux boxes but for many they aren't really alternatives.


RE: Monopoly?
By Spivonious on 9/15/2008 4:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
So get upset at the software vendors who aren't creating Mac/Linux software. Microsoft is not responsible for the lack of applications on other OSes.


RE: Monopoly?
By Gzus666 on 9/15/2008 4:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, they seem to be, that's why they get sued for it often. A standard should be followed, just like they do with everything else in computing. They have standard network protocols, they have standard hardware, etc. This works out better for the customer in the end, as interoperability is there. Although, by force, they are getting better about this.


RE: Monopoly?
By Spivonious on 9/16/2008 3:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
Windows lets developers use the standard networking protocols. I'm not sure what you mean by standard hardware.

To suggest that every OS should have the same API (which seems to be what you're implying) is just silly. Every OS does things in a different way, and trying to tie all of those together with some sort of standard OS API (approved by IEEE?) is just not feasible.


RE: Monopoly?
By Gzus666 on 9/16/2008 3:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
Windows doesn't "let" anyone use the protocol, they have to use it to be in the computer world. You can't go onto the Internet with anything but TCP/IP, because it has been standardized. Windows installs it, because they can't use anything else. I explained the standard hardware, a PCI-E bus is a standard graphics/expansion bus, and is used by all graphics card makers as a standard for new cards, and of course they somewhat support the AGP/PCI standard with older cards for legacy hardware. When they want a new bus interface, they will collaborate to make a new one, and standardize again. To suggest every OS used the same kernel and API layout is exactly what an industry of standards needs, more standards.

But you're right, lets just keep this crazy fight for supremacy going, that always works for customers. Security is not going to be solid until everyone gets on the same page, same with software stability, usability, and interoperability.


RE: Monopoly?
By Gzus666 on 9/16/2008 3:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I figured I would give some more examples of why it is crazy to have everything different between manufacturers. This is similar to having specific roads for each vehicle Make, and only certain makes go on certain roads. How about specific phones only work on specific phone lines, and every manufacturer just used whatever medium they felt was good to carry phone calls? Did everyone forget how old computers wouldn't work at all with each other at one point in time? This stupid OS fight doesn't help any of us, I have no idea why anyone fights for it.


RE: Monopoly?
By Spivonious on 9/17/2008 9:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
Can you drive a car on railroad tracks? Can you drive a train in the water?

If you want to travel across different surfaces (i.e. run applications on different OSes), you're going to need to change a few things.

Who would define such standards of OS design? IEEE? The government? It would take away any competitive advantage the OS has and everything would devolve down to who's OS looks the prettiest.


RE: Monopoly?
By Gzus666 on 9/17/2008 10:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
Can you use a computer to make toast? Sure, if you really want to change the design. What's your point?

Whoever has the prettiest OS is fine with me for competition, that seems to be a Mac's selling point, and they are doing fine, even with heavily overpriced hardware, and sub-par security. The point is, they would still be able to compete, cause the average consumer is retarded at best, and they would have interoperability, security, and usability. Who defined any standards we have in computing? Why are you able to buy a video card from Nvidia or ATI, and use it on most any motherboard? Cause there is a standard port that is used by all manufacturers. Why can you buy RAM from pretty much anyone, and as long as the controller is up to date, and the slot is recent, you can support it? Once again, a standard has been set. There are standards in networking, I don't see Cisco, Nortel, Juniper or others not competing. There are many things they can add on that are positive to their product, while still being able to work together. It is a process, it won't be instant, I wouldn't expect it to be. By your logic, we should just have 10 different expansion bus interfaces, and a few hundred different memory slot sizes and interfaces, all in the name of competition. This is bad for the customer, which oddly enough, would be you, as well as everyone else.


RE: Monopoly?
By kelmon on 9/17/2008 7:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yes - as noted in another comment, unless Apple comes up with a bloody good reason why they denied this application (which, by reports, is excellent) then I see no reason why developers can't take Apple to court for abuse of power.


Why I dont own apple products
By MrX8503 on 9/15/2008 12:20:34 PM , Rating: 4
If I buy an electronic device I own it, not the company that made it. This is why I don't own any Apple products, it's a closed platform.

If you read the posts at mac rumors some are mad and some are saying "Well..maybe they had a good reason". If this happened to the windows platform, there would be riots. This is the difference between PC users and Mac users. PC users can actually think for themselves.




RE: Why I dont own apple products
By 306maxi on 9/15/2008 12:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
Amen brother. I've not installed much on my N95 but at least I know that if I want to I can install anything that has been developed for the S60 OS and Nokia can't and don't want to dictate what I run on my own phone.


RE: Why I dont own apple products
By Hare on 9/15/2008 12:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If this happened to the windows platform, there would be riots. This is the difference between PC users and Mac users. PC users can actually think for themselves.

No need to generalize and label people. I know plenty of mac users who are definately against these sorts of tricks and PC users who have no problem with any limitations including all sorts of DRM solutions.

If you go to a mac forum, you will find religious fanatics who will approve anything. Same thing if you go to AMD forum, nVidia forum or Intel forum. These places have the most fanatic (and vocal) people but they definately don't represent the majority of brand X users.


RE: Why I dont own apple products
By lightfoot on 9/15/2008 2:23:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No need to generalize and label people.

Yeah, it's Apple's job to generalize and label people. If you use Apple you're "cool" or "hip." If you use Windows you're "boring" or "bland."

So get with the program and get an Apple like all the other "cool" kids are doing.

Just watch a few Apple ads if you are still unclear on how to properly generalize and label people.


RE: Why I dont own apple products
By Hare on 9/15/2008 2:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
Does it really matter what Apple (company) does? Lets say you drive a GM car and one day you notice that there's an advertisement on TV with a GM representative saying that all other cars are stupid and GM cars are the only ones that smart people would even think about owning. Would that make you a stuck up moron? I don't think so.


By Dark Legion on 9/15/2008 3:53:29 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, if you buy a GM because of that ad.


RE: Why I dont own apple products
By Etsp on 9/15/2008 6:47:44 PM , Rating: 3
You know, this is probably a reason that they killed the "I am Rich" app, it overlapped with any apple product. Since they are so overpriced, they make that statement on their own, and don't need an app to make that point. See http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/0... for more details. Fox News did a report about it as well, but I don't like leading people to that site whenever I can help it...


RE: Why I dont own apple products
By Gzus666 on 9/15/2008 6:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds about right, Apple is the only one allowed to overcharge to that extreme, they will be damned if they allow someone else to. Oh, and we all thoroughly appreciate not linking to anything that has to do with Fox News (I feel dirty just thinking about it).


RE: Why I dont own apple products
By kelmon on 9/17/2008 7:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'll admit that the Apple community does have its fair share of nuts who will defend any bad decision by Apple for totally irrational reasons (some even post here), but I'd appreciate it if you don't tar everyone with the same brush. The idea that all PC users think for themselves, frankly, is laughable.

Heck, even John Gruber (http://daringfireball.net/) described this decision as "stinks to high hell" and he's about as pro-Apple as you are going to get.


And people wonder why
By FITCamaro on 9/15/2008 12:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
Apple isn't at the top of the game in terms of adoption?




RE: And people wonder why
By HotdogIT on 9/15/2008 1:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
You honestly think this is the reason more people aren't purchasing the iPhone? Out of all the primary draw backs, this, this, is limiting it?


RE: And people wonder why
By FITCamaro on 9/15/2008 6:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
This is their policy for more than just the iPhone.


RE: And people wonder why
By Hare on 9/16/2008 12:31:26 AM , Rating: 2
Kindly give an example?


RE: And people wonder why
By kelmon on 9/17/2008 7:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I highly doubt a significant proportion of potential iPhones customers are not buying the iPhone because of what Apple is or is not allowing into the App Store. Most likely they have no idea this story exist and they are more concerned about other factors like price, functions and perceived problems.

Rather, I expect this story to make a significant dent into the number of iPhone developers and therefore applications unless Apple comes clean on exactly what is or is not acceptable. Even if developers don't agree with what is not acceptable, at least the uncertainty would be removed and that is going to cripple the platform until it is gone. Certainly I will not consider writing an application for the platform now until I know that my investment will not be a total waste.


RE: And people wonder why
By lightfoot on 9/15/2008 2:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
The worst thing Apple could ever do is to increase their marketshare significantly.

As pointed out earlier most of their business practices are anti-competitive and would be illegal if they exceeded 50% marketshare.

They need to be very careful in the smartphone market - if they are too successful they will have to change their business practices - and that's not good for profits.


RE: And people wonder why
By Noubourne on 9/16/2008 8:08:13 AM , Rating: 3
Luckily, they don't sell any smartphones.


Applesoft..
By whirabomber on 9/15/2008 12:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
From my first highly restrictive and painful to use experience with the iPod Shuffle, it was quite clear to me that apple had become a fascist company. The version of iTunes I was forced to use (because I could just drag mp3's to my iPod as a storage device/disk drive) would only allow my shuffle to connect to only one of my computers at a time - I couldn't copy mp3's from my laptop to my shuffle after I had loaded it with music from my desktop.

Rumor has it apple no longer makes ipod tethered to one system, but the experience caused me to not have an issue giving the thing away to my friend's daughter. I've since enjoyed my tether free iRiver and TomTom (which also works as a gps, has expandable memory, and cost just as much as an iPod).

From my experiences I am surprised people are surprised that apple is so restrictive. I'd rather wear a tie 24/7 than be strangled by ownership of another apple device.




RE: Applesoft..
By lightfoot on 9/15/2008 2:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From my experiences I am surprised people are surprised that apple is so restrictive. I'd rather wear a tie 24/7 than be strangled by ownership of another apple device

There's your problem. You want it to work the way you want it to. Apple doesn't do that. Their products just work - the way THEY want it to. You are clearly doing something wrong if you want it to work differently.


RE: Applesoft..
By Noubourne on 9/16/2008 8:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly why I own a Sansa.

Drag and drop. Done. What a concept!!


ppl had it backwards
By Dreifort on 9/15/2008 1:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone always accused MS of being the evil empire that tried to force you to join their cult... and Apple was always the savior.

When in turn it's Apple that is making the "cult" atmosphere. MS has always welcomed companies to design apps for their platform. While indeed, if a company threatened MS in developing something that was better.. MS would just buy them out.

Is getting money from MS evil? uhhhh, not really. Unless you get carpel-tunnel from counting all your dough.

Now forcing apps off your platform?... that sounds evil to me. More yet, it sounds eerily cult like.




RE: ppl had it backwards
By cmdrdredd on 9/15/2008 4:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
I remember a quote from someone at MS and I forget who. It sorta went like this, and I'm sorry if it's not word for word. "People will always pirate software, at least the software they are pirating is ours."

Something like that...Anyway it kinds said to me that MS understands that ppl will do what they do, right or wrong. They accept it and move on.


RE: ppl had it backwards
By code65536 on 9/16/2008 4:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
That was from Billy himself...


what's so great about apple
By mmichii on 9/16/2008 7:15:30 AM , Rating: 2
overpriced, overhyped, and restrictive

I really haven't even come close to liking a single apple product i've tried. didn't like the touch or shuffle with craptunes. if you want all your music with DRM go right ahead. i'll keep my creative and sandisk players.

Leopard tried it. It really didn't do much for me. If you want an OS where you have no real control go ahead. granted i only used it for a short while but it had me switching back to XP and Vista in a hurry.

can't understand the fuss over apple products. almost a fanatical religious aspect to it.




RE: what's so great about apple
By xti on 9/16/2008 2:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
cuz no one wants to be the 1 weirdo with the ugly-non-ipod-mp3-player.


RE: what's so great about apple
By kelmon on 9/17/2008 7:28:35 AM , Rating: 2
Less hassle. I switched to Apple laptops almost 6-years ago and they're wonderful. Your mileage clearly varied to mine but if you aren't bothered by these things and you like the Apple way of working then it works wonderfully. XP, frankly, drives me nuts but I have to use it for work.

Feel free to now inform me that I'm a computer illiterate or some such. I don't mind and, honestly, don't much care either.


1984
By kyleb2112 on 9/15/2008 4:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
I guess it's time to make a new commercial. 1984 wasn't like "1984", but 2009 will be.




RE: 1984
By Proxes on 9/15/2008 4:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
The original commercial is fine. We just now know Apple was predicting their own future.


By amandahugnkiss on 9/15/2008 4:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
I really despise what Apple is doing here but I also question the thought processes of the devs who made these apps. This is Apple, they're business practices are not entirely secret and this is typical Apple behavior. If these guys are shocked and dismayed that their apps which compete with some functionality already provided by a high profile Apple app were pulled then they've been drinking the Apple spiked cool-aid a little too long.

Besides, since Apple already builds the World's fastest computers (Steve said so) with the best OS and applications available they'd be subjecting their users to sub-par programs if they allowed these apps in the store, so really, they're just protecting the consumers :).




By kelmon on 9/17/2008 7:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is Apple, they're business practices are not entirely secret and this is typical Apple behavior.


Citation please. I'm damned if I've heard of anything like this prior to the introduction of the App Store.

Sorry, I'm as annoyed about this story as the next person but what you are spreading here is utter FUD. Apple has never killed an application for the Mac that competed with any of their own applications, not least because they can't. This is entirely new (but bad) territory for the company.


Bad decision
By Parhel on 9/15/2008 12:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
This doesn't make sense to me. In the short term, Apple will sell more of their own apps if there isn't any competition. In the long term, it will keep developers away - particularly those who would develop something that was truly useful.

Why spend time and money developing something will Apple may well just pull off the shelf? With this kind of precedent, it's even possible that if one was to develop a successful enough app, Apple might copy it and no longer allow the original to be sold.




What really happens...
By othercents on 9/15/2008 12:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
What Apple is trying to do is get people to develop the new updates they will implement for them. They want these developers to build these apps put them on the app store, so that Apple can reject them after they steal the app for their own purposes. This is the only reason why there isn't a pre-approval process.

Other




DoJ to the Rescue!
By gcouriel on 9/15/2008 12:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
it hasn't gone far because no one has taken Apple to task for it. Apple usually settles with parties when they start making a lot of noise, because Apple is a deep-pocket.

remember, a lot of the problems Microsoft has faced has been from the Justice Department, declaring their practices anti-competitive, and taking them to court. DoJ wasn't going to "settle", because they're in it for the result, not to "go away". since DoJ hasn't seen fit to go up against Apple (given that Apple has been a small-fry, until recently), there hasn't been much of an outcry.

however, given the wide-ranging success of Apple in the portables field, i don't believe they'll fly under the radar much longer.




*gasp*
By DASQ on 9/15/2008 12:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
Surprise! Apple likes to control it's platforms. Christ I didn't realize THAT after watching Apple for the last decade.




By SiliconAddict on 9/15/2008 1:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. This is a pure PIDOOMA guess but browsing I'd say for every 1 unique app there are 10-15 apps that do the same damn thing. The big difference being, some are buggier then others. Apparently instant success is based on how much **** you can cram in your store at one time. Apple store is the Walmart of the online world. All marketing limited substance. But then again how is this different then anything else Apple has put out in the last 6 years?




Apple-speak translation:
By Polynikes on 9/15/2008 1:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
Overlap - To compete with, replace or draw attention from.

I don't even understand why they care, the podcast section of the phone has been paid for, the tiny % chunk of dev costs for the app covered. What the hell's their problem?




By SiliconAddict on 9/15/2008 1:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
We're about to show you how to do an app store right. Watch and learn.

-Google

PS- When was the last time Apple put its money where its mouth is? As in sponsoring contests for cash prizes to get the creative juices flowing. Oh but that would require Apple to stop being a tightwad and actually spend some of the billions it has in the bank on real innovation instead of a nest egg for what happens when Jobs, someday, leaves the company.




Developers Developers Developers
By foo10019 on 9/15/2008 2:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Developers Developers Developers
Developers Developers Developers
come on now, everybody, with me!
Developers Developers Developers
Developers Developers Developers




Lenin?
By fuser197 on 9/15/2008 2:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
Is that picture collage supposed to be Steve Jobs as Lenin? Kinda funny and appropriate.

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient...




Apple being Apple
By milodog on 9/15/2008 3:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
I hope this piece of news doesn't come as shock and awe to anyone, after all we are talking about Apple. As stated "Apple Terminates App That "Overlaps" With Its Products", so basically if someone creates a better app than the norm, Apple will kill it. Nice friendly environment for a developer to be in. At least Microsoft lets itself get beaten up a bit by competition (though they do end up buying the competition out), come on Apple.




Aböt macintösh
By MrBowmore on 9/15/2008 6:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
I knew they were the evil empire #1 all along! I just knew it!




The good and the bad
By tech329 on 9/16/2008 2:05:57 AM , Rating: 2
Competition in the marketplace is good for innovation and, in the longer term, good for consumers.

The downside to Apple becoming a player is the support costs for companies. A lot of this has to do with how well Apple is able to integrate their products into the enterprise space. I'm sure that is their long term target market.

In that regard Apple will need to bend more than they have so far. MS has learned this over the years and I imagine Apple will do the same. If Apple wants to go toe to toe with the other players in the enterprise space they'll have no choice. Companies really can't go against this. It comes down to money. Apple, by cultivating a generation of users, creates an entry into this space but has to play by the rules. My guess is that over time Apple will increasingly acknowledge this reality. Either that or abandon the foundation they have laid.




Quality Matters
By iwod on 9/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quality Matters
By Gzus666 on 9/15/2008 10:56:46 PM , Rating: 4
OK, while I don't like MS, I hate Apple as well. This is a fine example of the misguided Mac user. They think that icon changes are more important than actual functionality. Notice how the OS X kernel is horribly insecure, meanwhile, Vista is way more secure than XP was? This is called progression. I know you will say something stupid like "but you can't get viruses on a Mac", that is no thanks to Apple, so don't bring it up, and that is changing as the market share changes, so get ready for that fun. They waited, what, a half a year to patch the DNS vulnerability? Boy, they are on the ball.

On top of that, at the hack convention, they had the Mac hacked in a day I believe, and it was using a vulnerability that was known by Apple for over a year. That is some impressive updating, go Apple! IE is being updated, and while I won't use it, they have been consistently, and it seems to be more secure than Safari, what a joke. Firefox stomps Safari's ass, get over it. While I love competition, I hardly like more closed business model competition, especially Apple, as they are kinda like MS 10 or more years ago, when they were like Fort Knox.

Enjoy your Mac crap, can't wait till the hackers start running rampant with that garbage.


RE: Quality Matters
By Hare on 9/16/2008 12:35:20 AM , Rating: 2
This is a fine example of the misguided BSB/Unix/Linux user. They think that kernel security is what makes an OS good. What happened to productivity, enjoying working with a good tool (OS) etc. People have different needs and different operating systems fulfill them better.

I personally use Vista and it's nice.


RE: Quality Matters
By Noubourne on 9/16/2008 8:11:31 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't seem misguided to me. You can't do any work on a tool that is crashing because it has been compromised by a lack of security. It's one thing to not know you have an issue, it's another to know about it and not do anything about it.


RE: Quality Matters
By Gzus666 on 9/16/2008 9:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you. The worst part, is I defended MS, and the guy freaks out about it. Windows die hards blow my mind sometimes with how they will follow a company no matter what, but it seems Mac users have them beat. MS has changed, but not cause they wanted to, because they HAD to.

And just for reference, I use Windows, and have since 3.1, and used MS DOS before that. In fact, that is what I learned on at home, and I used Apple computers in school with the fantastic green screens.


RE: Quality Matters
By xti on 9/16/2008 2:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
stop looking at porn => stop getting compromised.

in all seriousness, its been beaten to death. windows based boxes get hit..simply because they are the overwhelming majority. even if the exact same goal orientated virus is created for both mac and windows based boxes, u will hear more pc users complaining simply because they out number the mac ones.

would it stay proportional? i dunno...

and the mac commercials seal the deal as to why i never want one again. 2nd place, is the first loser.


RE: Quality Matters
By Gzus666 on 9/16/2008 9:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
Right, but wouldn't you like a secure and usable platform? That would be where standards come in. Nvidia could come out with a new bus interface, and keep it all to themselves, but that wouldn't work well for the consumer, and it is anti-competitive. That is why the industry collaborates on a new interface, and everyone uses it, so 99.9% of the computers made can use it, and everyone can make profit, and the consumer has choice, and quality products. Apparently this doesn't make sense to anyone. I'm starting to wonder if you were either too young to remember the "good old days" or forgot. Remember when nothing worked together? All hardware was different, that was a blast. Constantly tweaking things to make them run, fun fun fun. Clearly the move to standardize was a good one for everyone, so I always propose standards over a one certain product. If everyone standardized the kernel design, and all the baseline objects, they could then compete on the other fronts, while the consumer can easily work between any computer that comes out.

Then everyone could collaborate on the security updates, and other vital things, and there would be less of an issue with hackers, viruses, malware, etc.

That means the stupid fighting is over, and people use what fits them best, and there are no security concerns, or interoperability problems. Could you imagine if we still were fighting over internet protocols? TCP/IP, IPX/SPX, Appletalk? Wow, that would be fun, huh? Get over it, no OS has it right.


RE: Quality Matters
By Hare on 9/16/2008 12:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Did I mention standards? Even you didn't mention standards in your previous message. You just talked about security, which of course but is important is not the only thing that makes an OS good (my point).

Security doesn't come from standards, it comes from good design and engineering (programming). You don't really make a lot of sense jumping from security features to standardized hardware. What was the point? Everyone should use the same kernel for added security? One size doesn't fit all...

And yes, I've been tinkering with personal computers pretty much since they appeared.

Btw. It doesn't matter how well the system is designed. You will always have users who will do anything they can to get that "cute dancing bunny" attachment to open -> malware.


RE: Quality Matters
By Gzus666 on 9/16/2008 6:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
No, I mentioned standards, as it is good for everyone. Security doesn't come from standards, but having everyone collaborate on the same software sure does. If IBM, Sun, HP, MS, Apple, etc. etc. all concentrated on one platform, and worked towards security there, it would be more secure than anything we have, and I'm pretty sure the code would be much tighter. Security wasn't the only thing mentioned from standards. Security, usability, interoperability, all these things are by products of standardization. If they each want to put variations out after that (Linux distributions ring a bell?), go nuts, but the baseline needs to be the same, and things need to interoperate. There is no reason in the world we shouldn't be able to sit down at any computer, and use any program, other than a silly operating system war. Computers are too vital to our everyday life and economy to let a silly squabble ruin it.


RE: Quality Matters
By Hare on 9/17/2008 11:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
Apple uses plenty of open source software, apache, webkit, openssh, etc. All of these are "standard" and how secure is Mac OS X? They even use BSD as their operating system base because of its robust UNIX roots and security focus. How much did that help...

Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.

I still don't see your point.
www.opensource.apple.com


RE: Quality Matters
By Gzus666 on 9/17/2008 12:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yet, not everyone uses it, which makes it NOT a standard. Stop twisting things. Apple is based off Unix, but not everyone is based off Unix, or even the same branch of it. The point is not everyone is on it, which doesn't make it standard. Microsoft has no input in any way to the design of OS X, neither does anyone from the Linux project, or really any of their corporate backers. My point is that if everyone used the same thing, they would all support one platform, there by making it inherently more secure, cause that is the only thing someone can work on.


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki