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

Quality Matters
By iwod on 9/15/2008 10:47:56 PM , Rating: -1
Simple, Apple make product that i want to use. Microsoft dont. Most of the time I am forced to use M$ product. But i CHOOSE to use Apple's Product.

Although Vista was bad. It was a step in right direction. I could only hope Windows 7 will be a true XP successor. With a Decent , consistent interface and some proper icons update. And more polish tech underlying the OS.

Talking about the integration of IE inside OS. If Microsoft DID actually bother to UPDATE their GOD DAMN Internet Explorer with some, passion, soul and responsibility. Then not as many will Hate Microsoft for it.

But competition is good. It finally wakes them up.




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.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki