backtop

Print 38 comment(s) - last by foolsgambit11.. on Nov 7 at 7:33 PM

Google Street View on the iPhone  (Source: iPhoneYap)

OTA podcasts are coming via the 2.2 software update  (Source: Flo's Blog)
Apple's reasons for blacklisting Podcaster come to light

In mid-September, Apple sparked a firestorm of controversy when it rejected an app called Podcaster from admission to the iTunes App Store. At the time, an Apple representative proclaimed that, "Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes."

However, no such functionality existed to allow for mobile downloads of Podcasts using existing Apple software without being tethered to a Mac or PC. Many in iPhone/iPod touch community were angered by Apple's actions which led to a lot of bad press for Apple. Apple later slapped NDA warnings on its rejection notices to cut down on negative comments, but later reversed its draconian stance.

Now that the Podcaster/NDA ruckus has mostly blown over, a news story from TUAW sheds some light on why the Podcaster application was rejected in the first place. According to those familiar with the upcoming 2.2 software update for the iPhone and iPod touch, the ability to download podcasts on the fly has been enabled.

Users will now be able to directly download podcasts onto their devices via a "Get More Episodes" button from the Podcasts menu.

The 2.2 software update will also bring Google Street View, walking directions, location sharing and Public Transit information according to Apple Insider.

Updated 11/6/2008
Mac Rumors has obtained new photos of the 2.2 firmware update for the iPhone and iPod touch which confirm over-the-air (OTA) podcast downloads. According to the article, which was obtained information from a German source, OTA podcasts downloads are limited to 10MB in size when not using WiFi.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
uhm ok
By Soldier38 on 10/29/2008 8:33:38 PM , Rating: 5
but where in the hell is Flash support and MMS support. The 2 biggest features soo lacking in my iphone??? FIX IT!




RE: uhm ok
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/29/2008 8:41:25 PM , Rating: 5
We need COPY/PASTE


RE: uhm ok
By Chaser on 11/6/2008 1:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
Nearly every phone with a camera has MMS capability. Except the feature rich iPhone. Its ridculous.


RE: uhm ok
By TomZ on 11/6/2008 2:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, you cannot have these features on an iPhone until "King Steve" decides it will be so.


RE: uhm ok
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 2:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Just a thought.. but is it harder to highlight text on the iphone as you don't have a stylus? Perhaps this is why Apple decided to leave copy/paste out for now..


RE: uhm ok
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/6/2008 2:38:19 PM , Rating: 3
No, you an already zoom and move the cursor around the text in its current form. All they need to do is implement the ability to highlight and copy.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2mza895.jpg


RE: uhm ok
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 2:55:48 PM , Rating: 1
There must be a reason they left it out, perhaps a program isolation issue? I could see this being a security flaw that Apple dev's just did not want to dive into.


RE: uhm ok
By kelmon on 11/7/2008 4:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
Copy/Paste is almost certainly more important than MMS, not least because the iPhone has a full email client that you can use to send, well, anything. I'm quite convinced that MMS is a technology that will be replaced as phones evolve and incorporate proper email, which is far more flexible.

Yes, I know that this is a pain right now but then Apple have never been shy at dropping technology.

* Continues to cry over the loss of Firewire *


RE: uhm ok
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 2:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Flash is a closed source proprietary piece of software i.e it needs to be licensed and it can't be reverse engineered. As of mid october Apple stated that they do not plan on releasing flash or silverlight to the iphone anytime soon.
Which I find kind of funny, as Adobe flat out said they would develop a version for Apple, if they were permitted to do so.

P.S My friend has a jailbroke Iphone which has MMS enabled for those that can't live without it.


RE: uhm ok
By jjunos on 11/6/2008 3:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
thanks for trying, but wrong.

Adobe (probably seeing these issues) has attempted to open up flash completely (meaning removing licensing issues, relaxing restrictions, and more). I'm not saying it's perfect, but flash has come a LONG way from a few years ago. This isn't an issue with Flash/adobe, this is an issue with Apple.

But hell, don't believe me, how about doing some actual RESEARCH on it.

http://www.openscreenproject.org/


RE: uhm ok
By kelmon on 11/7/2008 4:30:44 AM , Rating: 1
It might just have something to do with the fact that Adobe seems incapable of developing a Flash client for the Mac platform (and, let's be fair here, that's exactly what the iPhone is) that makes efficient use of the processor. Put Flash on the iPhone and you can kiss goodbye to battery.

When Adobe finally makes a Flash client that runs at least as well as the Windows versions, then we can talk about letting them loose with the iPhone. In the meantime, you're better off without it.

Silverlight can take a long walk off a short cliff.


RE: uhm ok
By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2008 7:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the problem can be blamed on the processor for all Mac platforms - the desktop and laptop lines use Intel processors. The problem is with the OS (and the iPhone/iPod Touch run a stripped down OS X, so you're right that it's basically a Mac platform - maybe the only non x86 OS X platform out there right now?)

Now I do agree that Flash is a fairly resource-intensive application, and that it could be a battery drain (if it could even work at all). You're right about that. I always figured it was a lack of power that made them leave that out. But then, it can do video playback, and that can be a power-hog, too.


RE: uhm ok
By tjr508 on 11/6/2008 10:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
I just sent a pic last night and it took until this morning to figure out that they didn't get it because they were using an iphone.


Patent infringment?
By RabidDog on 10/29/2008 1:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but if the author of Podster patented the product, wouldn't Apple have to answer for this?

Odds are a patent was not filed, which is a shame. This is exactly the reason you have a patent on an innovation. Kinda putting the shoe on the other foot.




RE: Patent infringment?
By RabidDog on 10/29/2008 1:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
That should read...Podcaster...not Podster.


RE: Patent infringment?
By othercents on 10/29/2008 1:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt it especially since the iPhone could already play podcasts and adding the functionality directly to the phone was probably already slated for the design of the iPhone. Plus there is probably a clause for developers that keeps them from being able to sue which allows Apple to reject any application, so that they can add that functionality into their product.

Other


RE: Patent infringment?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/29/2008 2:35:25 PM , Rating: 3
This is what the Developer terms of use has to say:
quote:
"Nothing in this Agreement will impair Apple’s right to develop, acquire, license, market, promote or distribute products, software or technologies that perform the same or similar functions as, or otherwise compete with, any other products, software or technologies that you may develop, produce, market, or distribute. In the absence of a separate written agreement to the contrary, Apple will be free to use any information, suggestions or recommendations you provide to Apple pursuant to this Agreement for any purpose, subject to any applicable patents or copyrights."
So, yes, there's a little bit at the end about 'subject to any applicable patents or copyrights'. But still, I think he'd lose the fight to argue that his idea was patentable.

The whole thing is ridiculous, really. Sometimes you want apps to function differently than Apple made them function. Technically, for instance, you could probably use the iPhone calculator to do complex math by expanding Taylor Series by hand, but wouldn't you rather have a scientific calculator app? But would that app substantially duplicate functions already present for the iPhone?


RE: Patent infringment?
By bjacobson on 11/6/2008 1:34:03 PM , Rating: 3
Apple knows better than you. You paid $400 for the privilege to be told what you want. :)


RE: Patent infringment?
By UNCjigga on 10/29/2008 1:22:40 PM , Rating: 3
That makes as much sense as MagicPad/iCopy suing Apple if they eventually put copy & paste on the iPhone. There was no real "innovation" on PodCaster's part--they essentially made an Apple service accessible on an Apple product. Granted, why Apple didn't include either functionality to begin with is beyond me.

I do think that Apple is taking too much of an authoritarian stance with the iPhone/iPod platform and it might hinder 3rd-party innovation. Not a good stance to be taking with Android, Symbian and other open source projects in the wings.


RE: Patent infringment?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/29/2008 2:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
They have the market position now to be draconian. People have developed apps to do most of the things people want to do with a phone-MID-iPod-in-one. For the average user, there won't be much of a difference between an iPhone and an Android-based phone when it comes to OS and program functionality. There may be some specialty niches that will get filled on Android or Symbian that might be left unfilled on the iPhone, but for the vast majority of people it won't be available programs that is key to their decision.

They will decide based on cellular service provider offering the phone. They will decide based on device form factor. They will decide on physical keyboard vs. virtual keyboard. They will decide based on the chic factor. As they get more savvy, they might start deciding based on reliability, and in that field, Apple could have an advantage by having a closed platform.

Apple is slowly adding the functionality people would like to the iPhone. I personally can't wait for 2.2 for my iPod Touch. Most of my listening these days is podcasts, and not having to sync to get them onto the Touch will be a real boon. 'And we're all on the lookout for enormous boons.' (Of course, when I bought the Touch I assumed this functionality was included - I mean, it had iTunes on the phone. Who knew that meant only the iTunes Store part of iTunes? (Incidentally, I think that's the argument for Podcaster not being patentable. Patents have to be non-obvious, and Podcaster is obvious. So obvious I assumed it would be included.))


RE: Patent infringment?
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 2:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing here is I really don't think Apple was protecting their up and coming podcast app, but more so stopping people from streaming all of their music to their Ipod/Iphone over the internet a.k.a the 10Meg download limit. If people were allowed to stream at will, I could definitely see Itunes sales plummeting.


RE: Patent infringment?
By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2008 7:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
Um, how so? The 10MB limit is only when you're on 3G networks (and assuming EDGE on the old iPhone). If you're on WiFi, you'll be able to stream as much as you want. It sounds more to me like they didn't want to overload AT&T's networks.

Also, I don't think Podcaster or the Apple implementation in 2.2 could really replace purchasing music via iTunes. Can you make a playlist of songs you want to hear and have them stream from various sites on demand? Can you listen to a whole album? I just don't think they had reason to be that worried about this. Podcasting is different from streaming anyway.


Still no turn-by-turn directions
By Parhel on 10/29/2008 2:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
With every update Apple releases, it looks less and less likely that we will ever see turn-by-turn directions on the iPhone 3G. Doesn't anyone feel cheated by this? Where's the indignations? The iPhone was billed as something that would replace the GPS, and people have shelled out a lot of money to buy one.




RE: Still no turn-by-turn directions
By UNCjigga on 10/29/2008 3:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure Apple has no shortage of vendors knocking on their door, literally chomping at the bit for their app to become the "official" Apple-branded turn-by-turn nav app. The only reason for Apple to delay existing apps/vendors is if they're working on their own branded solution.


RE: Still no turn-by-turn directions
By Parhel on 10/29/2008 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only reason for Apple to delay


Or, maybe the rumors all along have been true, and turn-by-turn directions are impossible on iPhone hardware due to the lack of an external antenna.


RE: Still no turn-by-turn directions
By TomZ on 11/6/2008 1:15:19 PM , Rating: 3
That doesn't make sense since most/all handheld GPS navigation units lack an external antenna and give turn-by-turn directions.


By theapparition on 11/6/2008 4:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
I could be wrong here, but handheld/auto GPS units use dedicated hardware to directly pick up GPS signals.
Cell phone GPS use triangulation between cell towers to locate position, and lack of signal strength could certainly cause problems with locating.


RE: Still no turn-by-turn directions
By Parhel on 11/6/2008 9:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
My Garmin 350 has an antenna that flips out from the back, and it won't locate itself unless you use it.


By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2008 7:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the lack of external antenna. It's the lack of GPS hardware. There are various ways to triangulate your position, each with its own margin of error. Using GPS satellites requires a specific receiver. If it's not there, you aren't getting that functionality. Cellular signal triangulation works, but has nowhere near the accuracy of GPS, and nowhere near the accuracy necessary for turn-by-turn directions.

My GPS has no external antenna (and it's 5 years old now).


By amanojaku on 10/29/2008 6:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
I buy a phone because it's... a phone. Extra features are... extra. Anyone who bought the iPhone to replace a GPS wasn't thinking clearly. Google Maps on the iPhone works just like Google Maps on the Blackberry and has the same limitations. I love maps.google.com, but the mobile app doesn't quite compare. Don't blame Apple, blame Google. Or yourself. You might as well complain it's missing an accelerometer that links to Nike+, or that the MP3 storage is too tiny, or that the touch screen gets scratched too easily, or... Hell, I don't like the stupid thing but I have to admit that the price reduction makes it a DECENT buy, not a GREAT buy, compared to similarly priced phones. If you can stomach AT&T.


RE: Still no turn-by-turn directions
By kelmon on 10/30/2008 8:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
With respect, I don't think the iPhone was ever advertised that it would deliver turn-by-turn directions and that you are basing this on rumours of the likes of TomTom releasing their mapping software for the iPhone. If you are going to make buying decisions based on unsubstantiated rumour then you can hardly complain.

This said, the turn-by-turn directions may still happen but don't bet the house on it.


How is this an explanation?
By amanojaku on 10/29/2008 6:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now that the Podcaster/NDA ruckus has mostly blown over, a news story from TUAW sheds some light on why the Podcaster application was rejected in the first place. According to those familiar with the upcoming 2.2 software update for the iPhone and iPod touch, the ability to download podcasts on the fly has been enabled.


Is there a TECHNICAL reason? A LEGAL reason? If I buy the phone I should be able to install whatever I want and suffer the consequences. Apple is making it clear that the "i" in iPhone means Apple and not the consumer.




RE: How is this an explanation?
By kelmon on 10/30/2008 8:50:24 AM , Rating: 2
I tend to agree with this. Regardless as to whether Apple has an application already to do a job, or has plans to implement one, that should be no barrier to other developers producing their own applications within the confines of the SDK. This just looks anti-competitive to me and that's not right, particularly when you effectively require the developer to complete the application before you'll tell them whether it can be accepted or not.

Basically, the following needs to happen:

1. This anti-competitive behavior needs to end.
2. Apple needs to be much clearer about what is or is not acceptable.
3. Apple needs to involve themselves much sooner in the development process to validate whether functions to be implemented in the planned application will contravene the App Store rules.


By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2008 7:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that Apple should be clearer about what is or is not acceptable for developers so that they don't waste their valuable time developing a program that won't get released. But I think if you buy into a closed system, you have to be willing to live with it. The iPhone is a closed system. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It's a dictatorship. The fact that there are elections doesn't make it a democracy. The fact that there's a SDK and App Store doesn't make the iPhone an open system. But as long as people don't fight back, it will stay that way until the American government steps in and says, "This will not stand, man. This injustice will not stand."

Seriously, just like people get the governments they deserve, developers and consumers get the products they deserve.


RE: How is this an explanation?
By robinthakur on 10/31/2008 6:03:32 AM , Rating: 1
The reason is that Apple controls the platform and dictates what you can and can't develop for it. Its not Open Source. Deal with it.

From myself as a user of the phone, the Appstore offers all I've wanted so far. It certainly pees all over any other software delivery mechanism I've ever used on a phone in terms of ease of use, searchability and design.

This company who developed the podcaster software, I really feel for them and the wasted resources prior to the rejection notice, but do you seriously think that Apple are going to stand for having their own feature (and marketing blitz) upstaged by an app already in existence and available through the Appstore? For most users outside the development community and here (i.e. consumers) they'd be annoyed if they paid for an app which then becomes worthless once Apple release their version with an update, which most people would prefer to use anyway.

Lastly I think this is a storm in a teacup, as it s not like its happening to everything being developed, only to this one app. If you don't like it then please support Android instead, or jailbreak your phone, you always have that option.


RE: How is this an explanation?
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 3:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Read your contract, and then tell me that you have the right to install anything you want without consequence on your iphone.. You want that, get a g1 or a WinMo phone.

Or ultimately, jailbreak your phone and you can install what you wish.. otherwise you must follow the rules that Apple, and your carrier have implemented.


Anti-competitive Practises??
By HrilL on 11/6/2008 1:28:00 PM , Rating: 3
Apple is clearly being anti-competitive and this needs to stop. If Microsoft was doing this they would be sued and/or fined for this kind of behavior. If only the developer of podcaster had lots of money to spend on a legal battle.

This would be similar to Windows not allowing you to have your own browser or media player because it comes with windows. The choice should be yours as the consumer not Apple or Microsft's to make for you.

On another note I'd love to see a 3rd party browser for the iphone. Safari crashes on almost every other time it is used. I'd love to see firefox for the iphone. But with apples rules of no duplicated applications for the ones they make but not for ones in the app store. This seems very anti-competitive and I wish some government agency would fine them and make them stop. If their is firefox for the MAC then their should be for the iphone. Apple is worse then Mircosoft ever was




MobileCast
By WasabiX on 10/29/2008 4:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
I've tried both Podcaster and MobileCast (both jailbroken apps distributed via Cydia) and MobileCast is night and day better then Podcaster. It even allows you to sync with a free website where you can search and subscribe directly (similar to Itunes) but you can also search within the app itself for podcasts. I'll be pretty interested in seeing how well Apple impliments direct downloading of podcasts in 2.2 though.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki