Apple blocks competitive products from iPhone App Store--surprised?
With little clarity on what constitutes "duplicate functionality", Apple rejected the iPhone podcast client Podcaster on the grounds that "since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes".
No one should expect Apple to include competitive applications in it's walled garden. That would be the equivalent to Salesforce.com putting other CRM apps on the AppExchange. It's bad business for them. And it's just not realistic.
Nonetheless, this calls into question just how you can have a "platform" when the platfrom vendor arbitrarily decides to eliminate competition. The company shouldn't encourage developers to embrace the iPhone as a way to make money without clear ground rules on how to interact with the company.
As developer Fraser Speirs writes:
Let's be clear: forbidding "duplication of functionality" is forbidding competition. The point of competition is to do the same thing, but better. Worse, Apple hasn't even said which functionality is off-limits. I'm not arguing about what's legally or morally right in some abstract sense. I'm talking about common sense -- talented developers are looking at what is going on with the App Store and choosing not to write iPhone apps, out of the fear that their efforts will be for naught. If good developers are afraid to write software for your platform, it is a problem.
I've banged this drum before in relation to Facebook, another walled-garden that encouraged development then immediately replicated the functions of the ecosystem and took the monetization opportunities into their own hands. Investors who put dollars into companies whose products only run on Facebook headed for the hills months ago. Sadly, the iPhone may be the next bubble unless Apple provides some clarity.
When a platform is not open you are at the mercy of the vendor who may/may not be interested in making your life easier or making you money. While it's hard to say that Apple has been purposely disingenuous , it's clear that the company hasn't accurately represented the rules for exclusion.
Nothing kills 3rd-party developer motivation faster than unclear rules of engagement.
Dave Rosenberg dishes up "Software, Interrupted" with nearly 15 years of technology and marketing experience that spans from Bell Labs to multiple start-up IPOs to open-source enterprise software companies. He is co-founder of MuleSource and currently serves as the general manager of Hardy Way. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can contact Dave via e-mail at softwareinterrupted@gmail.com or follow him on Twitter @daveofdoom. 
<a href="http://www.redrome.com/iphone-app-store/top-paid-apps/">http://www.redrome.com/iphone-app-store/top-paid-apps/</a>
[url]http://www.redrome.com/iphone-app-store/top-paid-apps/[/url]
[url]http://www.redrome.com/iphone-app-store/top-free-apps/[/url]
[url=http://www.redrome.com/iphone-app-store/top-free-apps/]iTunes App Store Top Free Apps[/url]
Sorry about the extra posts...
[url http://www.redrome.com/iphone-app-store/top-free-apps/]iTunes App Store Top Free Apps[/url]
Sorry about the extra posts...
They bundle their OS with hardware and charge 3X of production cost , they prevent Parallels and VMware from running their OS, they tell customers when and how they can update their hardware, change your battery (Apple force you to buy warranty because you can't change battery yourself) , how and where you buy and play your music ...should I continue???? Now this is not a such a big deal! Just write apps for other phones! Anybody actually surprised that this happen???
This statement has never been verified. It's what Podcast says, not necessarily what Apple says. My guess is it's NOT what Apple said. I think Apple rejected to App because they don't want direct downloads to the iPhone because of the security risk. Podcasts downloaded from iTunes can be checked for malware by Apple.
Our goverment does it and guess what, its on for the last 8 years, it lies it hides stuff and on and on and yet, not till the very end to americans react. Apple, as much of you know makes the hard and soft ware that runs in their computers, therefore they are hold accountable for whatever goes on in their macs unlike microsoft. The point is that to keep things running smooth they need to supervise-control what goes on to guarantee that their products work as they want, not us btw.
So yeah, dont see why there is so much surprise about this, it makes sense.
Im surprise you guys dont know why tower 7 of the wtc felt but this, come on, is not physics is business strategy.
For the people making points that apple is a monopoly. Let me give you a course in anti-trust 101. Microsoft told stores that if they carried apple or Amiga products they would not be able to carry a single computer with there operating system. Microsoft froze every browser out of there operating system. That is anti-trust.
Now Apple, you can find any MP3 player sitting beside an Apple. You can buy music from Amazon or any other DRM free store and put it on an apple. You can use Winamp to load any music on an Ipod. The have an App store with hundreds of developers on it with tons of apps given away on a device that was never promised to provide that ability. It is a music player and a phone that happens to do some cool stuff. Now ask all of those developers to go to Samsung and LG or Verizon T-Mobile and see if you can get the same respect. Find me any product besides the wii were you can shoval anything onto without them having the ability to turn you down. Try getting microsoft to let you replace there content delivery system. Ask them can you replace Xbox live. Now how about Sony, or Verizon, or even Zune. See if Garin will let you load Tom Toms maps on it. Why does apple have to be different.
That my friend, is sealing off competition. Looks like you need to take off your Apple rose-tinted sunglasses and wake up to smell the bacon. Apple is clearly equating the MS of old, thinking they can do w/e they want. If people want something else to do pod casts, THEN LET THEM USE IT.
That's like Nintendo shooting down all games that resemble Wii-Sports, b/c it's a "duplicate game software." Are they allowed? Sure. Should they? HELL NO.
Apple doesn't have to do anything for your substandard masturbatory programming, and they sure as heck aren't beholden to present that sticky mess to the world for you. Write a useful, innovative new application that works like the dickens and fills a clever niche, and who knows, they might just take it. Until then, keep working and stop complaining. "Oh, oowie, I'm so butt-hurt that Apple won't let me sell my buggy garbage. Fascists!!" Whatever. Reliability! If I'm making toast, I want a M*F~~ Black & Decker toaster, not a %$^ science experiment kit. Anyway, I think I've made my point. Do whatever you want, but don't complain about what Apple does. They make fine boxes that get the job done. They're more expensive because they are of more professional quality-- deal with it.
Anyway, I hear the new Microsoft ads were composited on Macs. tss!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8 (youtube search apple commercial 1984)
Apple seems to have lived long enough to become the villian...personally, as a consumer, I've found many comparable products that work on macs but cost a fraction, phone/organizers, software, peripherals, MUSIC/VIDEO DOWNLOADS etc. Work dictates Mac, but in my humble opinion, Jobs is a Jerk! (talented Jerk though he may be)
The only power Apple has is the power that we the consumer give to them in the form of our dollars! Remember that the next time you buy something! Shop around, there's better products out there! Stop the abuse!
Anyway, Flash player is not necessarily 'blocked' - it may be Apple chooses not to pay Adobe whatever fee Adobe charges to port it to the iPhone. That is their choice. Does make it hard to see certain sites. It may be that AT&T was worried too much bandwidth - hence limit the video to YouTube. Don't know the rationale. Maybe Apple isn't perfect in making decisions.
As to 'competitive software' - Apple has the right to block downloads on their website. Why not create a competitve site for downloads? Might be possible, maybe not - maybe not worth it. Apple says they put out 100 million apps- how many were 100% free of charge? I won't normally buy apps as they generally don't seem worth even $5. The apps are mostly toys in any case.
BTW, Microsoft is certified as a monopoly by the US Justice department with a judge making that determination in 1999. Apple is not a monopoly.
Under these "grounds", Microsoft blocking other browsers to promote the use of Internet Explorer would be valid. Tsk tsk Apple, you're the next big antitrust.
If boycott is really their means, they should withdraw all the apps currently available in store.
- by dul2405 November 22, 2008 10:47 PM PST
- You can finally get the Top Apps without iTunes
- Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)http://www.redrome.com/app-store/