Apple to Podcaster: No App Store for you
Back in March, Apple executives Scott Forstall, Steve Jobs, and Phil Schiller said Apple would approve all iPhone applications but didn't say very much about the criteria they planned to use.
(Credit: Corrine Schulze/CNET)Apple's App Store policies are really starting to frustrate application developers.
Over the weekend, a good old-fashioned Internet-style kerfuffle arose over Apple's decision to reject Podcaster--an iPhone application that lets people download podcasts directly to their devices without going through iTunes--from the App Store. The developer of the application said that Apple told him the application "duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes," apparently making it unfit for the App Store.
This has been a persistent question hanging over Apple's decision to vet every single iPhone and iPod Touch application sold through the App Store, the only official source of iPhone and iPod Touch applications. How will Apple choose to wield this power? The rejection of Pull My Finger and I Am Rich didn't cause as many waves as the execution of NetShare, but the exact parameters remain a mystery.
Back in March, the company said it would prohibit applications that took up a lot of bandwidth, or delivered porn, but they have never explicitly stated what is permissible and what isn't. And without any guidelines, developers have no way of knowing whether their application will be included in the only official market for iPhone applications until after they've done all the work on it.
I can't help but be reminded of the Soup Nazi, brought to life by Bill Gates' new best friend Jerry Seinfeld. Watch the clip if you don't remember, or were in grade school when that came out, but if you didn't order soup from the Soup Nazi in the exact right way, without asking any questions or voicing concerns--procedures that you were somehow just expected to know--no soup for you.
On Friday, , lashed out at Apple's lack of explicit policies regarding iPhone application development. "Apple's current practice of rejecting certain applications at the final hurdle - submission to the App Store - is disastrous for investor confidence. Developers are investing time and resources in the App Store marketplace and, if developers aren't confident, they won't invest in it. If developers - and serious developers at that - don't invest, what's the point?"
It's understandable that Apple might want to control the development of iPhone applications with an iron fist, given that the company attempts to control absolutely every last detail of its activities with an iron fist. And there are benign reasons for wanting to control application development so tightly, such as ensuring quality and security.
But in another example of what we've seen so far this summer, Apple's recent mistakes involve communication, or the lack thereof. If the company would just come out and explain to developers what type of applications will be rejected, and why, developers could make a conscious decision about whether to invest their time and money in developing their application.
Instead, Apple is giving developers a choice: they can take the risk of guessing whether their application will pass muster, or they can steer clear of developing any application that might infringe on Apple's current or future plans; without knowing what those might be, of course. As Harry McCracken put it (via Daring Fireball), "Way back when, if software distribution for the Mac had been handled via a Mac App Store with a don't-duplicate-Apple-products policy, Photoshop might have been refused distribution on the grounds that it was too similar to MacPaint."
The end result is that Apple's attempt to control third-party development might be re-encouraging the growth of the jailbreaking market once again: iPhone OS 2.1 is already open to jailbroken applications.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
It is MY PHONE! I'll put anything I want on it....
Can the precious App Store prevent me from stuffing dirt into the phone?
Try that Steve!
That alone is a win-win.
Apple is showing signs of the issues that made it crumble in the 80s. This is a perfectly good app. It won't use any more bandwidth than YouTube, a pre-installed app.
The Genius feature for iTunes will find songs within *your already-existing collection* that will go good with the song that you've selected or it will recommend songs sold on iTunes that you can play 30 seconds of (sample). Pandora uses a similar technology, but plays the ENTIRE song, much like a satellite radio station but with a playlist more refined to your tastes.
I use Pandora to actually listen to music which I may or may not have on my iPod (I have a Touch). I use Genius in iTunes to find new songs or create playlists of songs I already own. Big difference.
The iPhone SDK clearly outlines ?Your Obligations? in its section 3, with 3.2 addressing ?Use of the SDK? and 3.3 laying out ?Program Requirements for Applications.?
Under section 3.3, it lists fifteen very simple requirements related to APIs and functionality. The third one:
"3.3.3 Without Apple?s prior written approval, an Application may not provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the iTunes Store."
Read the full article in...
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/15/sdk-333-the-iphone-podcaster-surprise-myth/
But it really speaks more to the point: the SDK language can be confusing, and Apple isn't going out of its way to make it clear. Had Apple told the developer in question that their application violated section 3.3.3 paragraph q, or whatever, then perhaps it would be clearer. But they didn't.
1) Apple documents specific rules about what apps cannot be published.
2) Apple lets anyone publish (with no review process) subject to a publishing fee. Maybe $50 + 10 x cost of the app. This fee will reduce the amount of worthless crapware that gets published.
3) The visibility of an app in the store will be based on sales and customer feedback (including complaints).
4) Apple can yank any app that violates the rules, has too many complaints, or doesn't sell.
5) Apple maintains a public list of all apps that were yanked and why they were yanked.
Anyway, that's just a suggestion. Probably not perfect, but probably better than the current process.
Podcaster is not doing that. They were going to sell through the App Store and generate all their revenue through the App Store. If it's against the license to access the internet using an App Store app, then we're all in trouble.
No, there is nothing in the developer agreement prohibiting Podcaster in any way.
Apple is completely wrong on their approach.
If Apple has to pre-approve applications, it would be only common sense to think about the implications of the product one is developing. The obvious was stated (regarding porn, etc.), but the developer also has to consider potential security risks, resource requirements, stability in single state, multi-application platform, possible competitiveness against current Apple products, and future development. If the developer has questions, they should contact Apple and get a clear response on whether or not their initial idea would pass. For the most part, applications will pass.
I feel there is a lot more to the Podcast application than meets the eye. One simple question is what checks, and balances are there between a Podcast from iTMS, versus a small shops development of obtaining Podcasts from any source? What risks have now been exposed?
I'm afraid you were asking the wrong questions.
Obviously, if there were security concerns, then Apple must list those concerns, and in my opinion, provide those reasons to the developer. Actually (unless it's stated in the agreement, I would have to read it again), it also could be they felt that the Podcast section of iTMS was being diluted because of having Podcaster on the iPhone. Still, if that is the case, fine, but say so.
Well said.
If that's the case what your excuse of MSFT still in the low 20's?
Now go back to playing with your MS calculator.
If they don't any programs that "delivered porn", shouldn't Apple remove Safari?
Apple doesn't like competition!
This just a small part used from TG Daily...these adverts are brilliant on two counts. They are funny to the lay person , and even funnier to the analytical geek.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39294/118/
- by etiahwhite September 15, 2008 1:59 PM PDT
- I don't really see the big deal in apple controlling what apps make it to the store. It's there prerogative. Yes, they should clarify what is and isn't allowed a little better. I just assume they don't want to make a blanket statement about something and prefer to look things over on a case by case basis. I also think it's likely for the better that they screen everything before they make it phone. An iPhone is supposed to a mini computer and the idea of some malicious app making it onto my phone is enough to make me not consider jailbreaking it.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by fdunn3 September 15, 2008 4:28 PM PDT
- It's not the point of which apps make it to the store. Ultimately it's which apps can make it to YOUR iPhone (not theirs). They are treating you like you are renting it.
-
-
- by ZooCrewMan September 15, 2008 8:33 PM PDT
- With that logic, it will only be a mater of time before His Majesty tells me what I can and what I can't install on my macbook pro. But so long as it's all in the name of security, I'll take Steve's word for it. It's amazing what can be denied us all in the name of "security."
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (59 Comments)And if an app makes it on to your iPhone they don't like then they simply and remotely (without your consent) disable and/or remove the app.
"Please uncle Steve can't I have the apps I need? NO, now go to your bedroom or I'll disable all of your apps!"