“This week [Apple] faces a full-scale revolt,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt blogs for Fortune. “The issue: Apple’s summary rejection of a program on the grounds that it duplicated a function on one of its own programs. ‘Apple has gone too far,’ writes Paul Kafasis for O’Reilly Digital Media. ‘Rejecting an application because it might compete with Apple is simply indefensible.'”
“‘If this is truly Apple’s policy, it’s a disaster for the platform,’ says Daring Fireball’s John Gruber, one of Apple’s most influential supporters,” Elmer-DeWitt reports.
“‘I will never write another iPhone application for the App Store as currently constituted,’ writes Fraser Speirs, developer of a popular iPhone app called Exposure. His post is titled ‘App Store: I’m Out,'” Elmer-DeWitt reports.
Elmer-DeWitt reports, “The battle lines were drawn when an Apple representative reviewing submissions for the App Store rejected a program called Podcaster. According to its developer, Alex Sokirynsky, Apple turned his program down on these grounds: ‘Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes.'”
Elmer-DeWitt reports, “But as nearly every commentator has pointed out, Podcaster went an important step beyond Apple’s program. iTunes requires that you plug the iPhone into your computer to sync it before you can get the latest broadcasts. Podcaster, by contrast, would have let you update your podcast subscriptions directly, using the iPhone’s Wi-Fi receiver.”
Full article here.
On the other hand, RoughlyDrafted’s Daniel Eran Dilger writes today, “The ‘controversy’ surrounding Podcaster is a joke. 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.'”
Dilger writes, “Under section 3.3 (I’m looking at a ‘pre-release confidential’ version that was freely available on the web from a Google search; this may have changed slightly in newer revisions), 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.
Dilger writes, “One can complain that Apple is not handing its platform over to third party developer control again, something that worked out disastrously on the original Macintosh, but it’s simply ignorant to complain that Apple is shooting developers out of the sky without warning.”
Full article – recommended – here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Macaday” for the heads up.]
[UPDATED: 11:15am EDT with RoughlyDrafted article excerpt and link.]
If duplicating the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes is Apple’s only reason for barring this app, then as we pointed out after Apple wrongly pulled “I Am Rich” from the App Store – an app that did exactly what it was advertised to do and did no harm at all to iPhone, by the way – “Apple’s position is simply indefensible… Apple is completely in the wrong about this and is sliding rapidly down a slippery slope.”
Who’s making these app decisions and on what grounds, Apple? A summer intern?
Apple needs to wise up quickly lest they be tagged as not only as unprepared and unclear, but, far worse: anti-developer and anti-competitive.
MacDailyNews Note: As Elmer-DeWitt notes, Sokirynsky is currently using Apple’s Ad Hoc App Distribution system to make Podcaster available. The app can be installed on any iPhone or iPod touch running firmware 2.0 or higher. You DO NOT need to jailbreak your device. More info and how to get the app (US$9.99 donation) here.
Rich, read it again.
“Podcaster, by contrast, would have let you update your podcast subscriptions directly, using the iPhone’s Wi-Fi receiver”
Podcaster will update your iTunes podcast subscriptions. It doesn’t offer a separate subscription service that piggybacks onto iTunes.
So, where’s the harm Apple?
I meant the Macaday post with THIS link:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/15/sdk-333-the-iphone-podcaster-surprise-myth/
That’s a shame. Because I really needed a program on my cellphone that let’s me categorize and play back podcasts to remind me that it’s o.k. to be wealthy <u>and</u> have really bad gas.
Okay, Macaday, you’re right.
In case I missed something, why didn’t Apple cite this breach of contract when they pulled Podcaster? It would kept the hand wringing and cries of censorship and oppression to a minimum.
Personally, I still don’t see what’s wrong with Podcaster. Maybe Apple should have just offered to BUY Podcaster and fold those remote-sync features into iTunes. It certainly would have generated GOOD will toward Apple.
They say there’s no such thing as bad press, but there’s certainly nothing GOOD about this kind of bad press.
Thanks Macaday, the problem with the App Store is not a problem. The developers involved are the problem.
“This is a particularly shameful thing for developers in the SDK program to misrepresent, because the restrictions are covered in the program’s SDK are are not supposed to be published publicly.”
Concerning Podcaster myth!
Bad Apples. I looking forward to getting an application like this. I currently book mark web pages so I can listen to the days podcasts on my why home from work. I don’t want to have to sync with my MacBook everyday just to get these podcasts. I have Mobile Me so everything else that is important to my is synced live. I’ve been hoping that a simple podcast manager would soon become available. Bad Apple…
It is a myth that Apple is rejecting applications without any reason.
Every developer has to agree to the license agreement to use the iPhone SDK and it clearly states “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.”. Podcaster is bypassing iTunes and violating the agreement. It is not Apples fault that some developers don’t read the license agreement and try to get written approval, before beginning work on their application, which then ends up rejected.
Check out this article from RoughlyDrafted Magazine that goes into more detail about why certain applications are rejected.
SDK 3.3.3: The iPhone Podcaster Surprise Myth
Please stop spreading uninformed myths and rumors.
Poor developer…
Hours & hors of work for nothing.
Apple want 30% of any sale of the probably next standard mobile platform ? Fine. They invented it, after all. And it’s simpler for the developers to market their stuf.
Apple want to limit the possible apps ? it should be limited only to unstable / dangerous apps. Even SEX apps should be available to my opinion, under control & disclaimers.
Where’s Freedom ?
Where is america ?
I am a 100% pure Mac guy from ever i can remember. Even during the tough times…
APPLE, read this : If your plan is to become microsoft, i’ll leave the platform.
APPLE, read this : I LOVE freedom. You can limit your own apps as you want, but certainly not refuse someone else’s app except for technical reasons.
APPLE, NEVER forget : you were great, but you become exceptional because of competition. Do not kill it. Just do better than it.
APPLE, even by becoming the 1st world computer seller, stay the “little company that inovates on top of everyday’s frustration”.
I really RECOMEND the apps validation to be a pure technicaly automated test validation. Do not restric more than law.
This is a very sad day to me… My entrepreneur light is fading.
Please correct ASAP.
Sincerly,
A businessly impressed (and depressed today) young french entrepreneur.
OK, we need an iPhone boot camp to run Windows Mobile. That will allow us the freedom to choose whatever apps we want. -:)
This is EXACTLY an App that I’ve been looking for… I wanted ability to download certain podcasts to my phone. WTF is wrong with APPLE!?! The seem to be blocking all the good, worth while apps… Netshare, Navigation… this sucks.
Why should Apple allow an app that does something that Apple doesn’t allow itself to do?
Why should Apple allow an app that contravenes the reason why Apple decided to restrict downloading large files and video. ?
Why should Apple allow an app that contravenes the iPhone SDK Licence re applications that require or will have access to cellular networks?
“It BREAKS the agreement, the developer knew, or should have known that.”
Those words are so general that any app that goes and gets data from the Internet without going through imaginary nonexistent capabilities of iTunes could be banned.
IM messaging is a “distribution mechanism”.
What in effect Eran the Idiot is saying is that Apple is within it’s rights to ban any net connected app, which downloads data, that doesn’t go through iTunes for that data.
But there are dozens of examples of those kind of apps in the app store already.
This one only got banned because Apple perceived it as competing with them.
That’s a very BAD precedent to set.
Code whatever you like, but if it conflicts with present or planned Apple functionality, you’re out!
If you dont like it – go somewhere else – stop bitchin and buy windows where anything can happen. Why mistake APPLE’s App Store for YOUR App Store, or consider Apple should have a Free-For-All instead of certain restrictions ? This is what the “competition is good” whiners get, when the competition slays you, or locks you out, you cry foul, but that’s exactly what competition is supposed to do – beat you.
This is a really bad decision on Apple’s part—first of all because Podcaster does not duplicate iTunes functionality. Without an app like Podcaster, there is no way to download podcasts directly to the iPhone.
Although I am generally a faithful defender of Apple’s right to be Apple, they’ve gone too far this time imho.
“Developers who do not want to develop for the iPhone are free to go some were else e.g. Windoze Mobile and try their luck there. “
No-body’s stupid. if Apple said up front, “Your App will be banned” No-body would code banned apps.
The problem is that the words are subject to much interpretation that just about any app could be banned, and you don’t get to find out until after you code and ship your app whether Steve’s jackbooted foot will come down on your neck.
Anyway, what’s the problem with an Amazon Music Store app for the iPhone if you want to write one? Monopolies are nice for the company which owns them, but an bit of competition certainly never hurt consumers.
Macaday and Robman are right. Read the full Dilger article. What the developers are doing with this issue is itself deceptive. They are misrepresenting what is in the SDK Agreement, and pretending that what is in it is not there. Podcaster should have been dead at conception if the developer had read the Agreement, OR the developer could have sought Apple’s prior approval. Podcaster and pCalc are not remotely comparable. The former directly competes with the the iTS distribution channel and Apple’s business model. Does Apple need to clarify some things? No doubt. But this notion that Apple is anti-competitive is a joke. Much as I love Daring Fireball, shame on Gruber for propagating this nonsense.
OK; Apple had every right to remove this app, since it was in violation of the SDK.
However, as many have said, it’s a slippery slope. If many developers end up getting rejected due to a violation of DSK, this may begin to create a negative perception of Apple. So far, it doesn’t (majority of people have never heard of I’m Rich, or Fart apps), but a lot of noise may change that.
Apple will need to think about this on an individual basis, especially in situations when an application clearly provides missing functionality, and doesn’t seriously impact performance. So far, these apps have been few and far in between, so it isn’t like Apple would need to dedicate 15 people to the task of reviewing apps every day.
If we put this whole thing in perspective, though, out of some 3,000 apps, there were half a dozen that got banned, for one reason or another. That’s less than 1%. If this guarantees better stability of the iPhone compared to other mobile devices, it may be something that vast majority consumers are willing to swallow.
If developers can’t be bothered to create useful, creative and NEW apps instead of duplicating or copying other developer’s ideas over and over… they don’t deserve to thrive. I’d rather use iTunes.
Apple, you have lost me — and countless others — as developers for the iPhone. I will NEVER waste my time & money necessary to develop an app for the iPhone with these draconian policies in place. If you want to COMPLETELY STIFLE the platform, congratulations to you because that is EXACTLY what you’re doing. Good riddance, iPhone platform. I’ll continue developing for the Mac, but never the iPhone.
The problem is not Apple banning apps, but rather phrasing the agreement so widely that any app potentially could be banned then banning apps on secret criteria known only to Apple.
As apps get banned we get to understand better what that criteria is becoming.
Today’s new rule to add is: Don’t write apps that compete with anything Apple might do now or in the future.
If you think this scenario is teetering on the brink of chaos, just wait until Google opens up it’s version of the App store. Their policy will be to allow anything and everything, which will all but ruin the brand.
“If we put this whole thing in perspective, though, out of some 3,000 apps, there were half a dozen that got banned, for one reason or another. “
Which means that half a dozen people lost their entire investment in iPhone development, in this case for the only reason that it competes with functionality that Apple might introduce.
For now it’s mostly been silly or trivial apps. But can you imagine sinking millions into iPhone development to have Apple tell you that they won’t release your app because they’ve been secretly working on one which does the same thing and they don’t want you competing with it?
Apple has a better way open to them. let the app live for now and build the functionality in to future iPhone software. Then the app vendor can take another leap ahead of Apple or die.
In the case where Apple thinks an app is silly or useless, they’re not really equipped to make that judgement. It appears a lot of people thought “Pull My Finger”, useless as it is might be a funny app to own. They should let the market decide and developers of applications that customers (not Apple) think are silly and useless apps will fade over time.
Ok, then why are there RSS readers in the App Store? They do basically the same job as this does. The format of data might be different, but the function is the same.
Today the bell tolled on the death of the iPhone as a smartphone platform.
This action will put the shit up so many developers, thinking that all their efforts can be for nothing based on arbitrary Apple decisions that few will ever develop more than a tip calculator which takes a weekend to write.
How is it that Apple manages to mix it’s bursts of extreme brilliance with bursts of extreme stupidity?
“Ok, then why are there RSS readers in the App Store? They do basically the same job as this does. The format of data might be different, but the function is the same.”
My point exactly. There’s hardly an app Apple can’t chose to ban for breaking one of the overly broad and vague rules in the SDK agreement.