“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.
The second new rule for today is:
Don’t write any app which downloads any information of any kind from the Internet, unless you get that information through iTunes.
I’m with apple. It’s their store and their platform. One of the reasons I like Macs, iPhones, iPods, and iTunes is that they all work together seamlessly.
Competition? What competition? I’ll stick with the best. Apple is way out in front, and one of the reasons is that they maintain tight control. But if you insist on competition, I hope you enjoy your Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and Zune.
“But if you insist on competition, I hope you enjoy your Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and Zune.”
JohnLee, you miss the point. So Apple rejects an app for the iPhone and a consumer like you gets less choice in the store. That’s not much of a big deal for you. There’s no money actually out of your pocket.
The big problem is the chilling effect on developers who don’t get Apple’s verdict on whether an app is OK or not until they commit resources, complete it and submit it for sale. And right now, the interpretation of the rules is completely arbitrary.
So I don’t think anyone would care if Apple told them up front that their App would not be accepted so they could just go away and develop it for another more open platform. The problem is today there’s no way to get that answer.
Developing software is a risky enough business as it is.
The one extra risk you don’t need is the possibility some Bozo in Apple Inc. is going to tell you at the end you can’t sell your application because of their (mis)interpretation of the SDK terms.
There’s a noisy, little self-righteous troll on this thread hiding behind different names spewing the same entitlement crap over and over again. If you’re an AAPL shareholder, go the next meeting and complain. If not, STFU. Your whining is pathetic and annoying. But more likely, you’re a volunteer astroturfer. We’ve seen so many more of those lately and everyone of them reeks of desperation.
“There’s a noisy, little self-righteous troll “
Actually I’m a potential iPhone developer looking at iPhone and a number of other platforms.
See how you like the rules if you’re thinking about putting actual money into building iPhone applications, especially ones which would significantly enhance an internal application.
For you this is just theoretical, for me it’s a real problem.
But apparently someone who’s never built a software company in their life thinks I’m a whiner, so I’ll just STFU.
I think everyone is missing the overall point of this app.
Podcaster adds functionality to a person’s iTunes account by allowing them to wirelessly (via Wi-Fi) download podcasts to their iPhone/iPod Touch. Apple does not provide this function via the iTunes Store or through iTunes software. That violates the SDK Agreement.
Apple may have very good reasons for not allowing wi-fi downloads of podcasts. It may have to do with controlling subscriptions, regulating access to the iTunes Store, or simply they don’t want you to do it that way. Whatever the reason, Apple isn’t talking.
But Apple has in its SDK Agreement specific language stating that you can’t do what Podcaster does. And that’s the problem, not whether it’s a desirable feature or not. Podcaster breaks the SDK Agreement, therefore it cannot be placed on the App Store.
If the developer says he didn’t know that rule, he may be telling the truth. It just means he didn’t read the SDK Agreement before developing Podcaster.
Everything ABOUT iTunes + iPod is anti-competitive and has been from the get-go. Why should this be any different?
Using their position as market leader to disallow competition is what iTunes is all ABOUT. Bought from iTunes store? iPod only, thanks very much.
“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.”
bizlaw. I challenge you as a lawyer to take that clause and tell me what it actually means I can and can’t do. are RSS feeds out? IM? other email apps? Apps which access corporate databases? Other browsers? Apps which access 3rd party music stores? Streaming media players? Apps which access large stores of data on the Internet for some purpose?
Or are they only out when they compete with Apple apps, as seems to be the case today?
“Using their position as market leader to disallow competition is what iTunes is all ABOUT.”
That’s fine. All I’m asking for is to not have to guess what’s allowed and what is not.
LOL!!!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
A lot of readers don’t get it,
you want a free-for-all at the app store, but, just like at a bar,
when someone smashes a stool over your head,
you want the law to impose some rules. Which is it?
Apple is the law. You don’t have to like it, as long as you go somewhere else. Have fun developing for 300 different devices at once on the Google Android Store, yeah, then come back and tell us all how wonderful your penniless adventure was.
Here’s an app for you:
it’s called ‘Whoopie’, when someone sits on your android phone and breaks the screen, it let’s out a fart sound – LOL
Why? because even though it’s poor taste and stupid, and you won’t make much money, Google will let you waste your life however you want, great news for ‘developers’.
Make sure you get listed next to ‘I am rich’, for the
‘halo effect’ to take place.
Discovering is right — that rule prohibits any data distribution that’s not through iTunes Store?
MLB & other sports apps get their data directly from the source.
Facebook & other social networking apps get their data directly from the source.
AIM & other chat apps get their data directly from the source.
Apple can’t stand on that clause (and to my reading, HAS not cited that clause) as a reason for rejecting that app on those grounds. In fact, they’ve permitted so many exceptions to that clause that to try to enforce it in nearly any way would be discriminatory.
“you want a free-for-all at the app store, but, just like at a bar,
when someone smashes a stool over your head,
you want the law to impose some rules. Which is it?”
I don’t care what the rules are. What I want is a sign on the door which tells me the rules before I go in.
I don’t want a bar that looks nice from the outside, so I go in, order and pay for a drink and before I can drink it the proprietor Steve Jobs smashes a stool over my head and throws me out because he didn’t like that I chose to sit down in one of his secretly reserved seats.
“”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.”
The above condition simply means that you cannot use the iPhone SDK to develop an iPhone app that would allow it to be distributed without going through the iTunes Store.
What Podcaster did was develop an app that clearly violated section 3.3.15, i.e,
Cellular Network:
3.3.15 If an Application requires or will have access to the cellular network, then additionally such Application:
– Must comply with Apple’s best practices and other guidelines on how Applications should access and use the cellular network;
<b>- Must not in Apple’s reasonable judgment excessively use or unduly burden network capacity or bandwidth;<b>
– May not have Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) functionality.
And after enough people read in the news about harmless patrons who are getting their heads bashed in in “Crazy Steve’s Bar” they all decide to avoid the place. That’s even if Steve only smashes the head in of one or two patrons a week.
OOPS. You just violated the agreement by publishing a part of it. Look forward to having all your applications banned.
maclover – “you want a free-for-all at the app store, but, just like at a bar, when someone smashes a stool over your head, you want the law to impose some rules. Which is it?”
I don’t think anyone’s mentioned a free-for-all or anything like it. Weeding out dangerous / crashy / marginally-functional apps is extremely useful.
As far as the bar metaphor, it’s more like posting a “no outside drinks” sign on the door, and then letting people bring in outside beverages EXCEPT for the ones that taste better than the ones that particular bar has on tap.
“What Podcaster did was develop an app that clearly violated section 3.3.15, i.e,”
How so? The VOIP thing is quite clear, but the rest is completely vague.
I move gigabytes of data a month on 3G connections. For me a reasonable limit would be an application that didn’t move more than a few hundred megabytes a day. Do you think that is what Apple has in mind?
Would anyone like to GUESS at what level Apple is going to cut you off?
And the problem is not the limit but the need to GUESS.
If they published the limit, you could build some bandwidth throttling into your application to keep everyone happy.
Other clauses are equally vague.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the issue was that Podcaster could connect over 3G, thus making it a bandwidth hog, which is a no-no. If it’s just wifi, then it should be okay.
Re: OOPS. You just violated the agreement by publishing a part of it. Look forward to having all your applications banned.
That is why I copied it from http://www.tuaw.com/2008/03/08/apple-to-allow-voip-on-iphone/
“Discovering the boundaries.”
What makes you think I was referring to you? Must’ve struck a nerve.
holy cow people….apple DOES have a clear set of guidelines of what an app can’t do…MDN I never disagree with you but cmon they are very clear and very prepared….podcaster went against section 3.3.3 apparently and that is enough. Written, very clear.
seriously people…
“podcaster went against section 3.3.3 apparently and that is enough. Written, very clear.”
Since it’s really clear DUH, can you tell us the exact rule. Just how much data can we developers move before Apple cuts us off?
To turn it into a speeding law:
The State of Ignorance would like to inform you that if you are caught speeding in our beautiful state, you will be executed. We also find clear road signs to be ugly, so won’t be posting any. In any case they won’t do you any good because our speeding law is this:
If you are driving faster then you should, an law enforcement officer will execute you on the spot. There are no appeals, an officer’s decision is final. Don’t bother looking at what other drivers are being allowed to do as a hint, because the officer is given the discretion to apply different criteria to different drivers.
As always if you find this law to be problematic please don’t visit the State of Ignorance.
@ Discovering the boundaries
Hello? Is anybody there?
Certain bars in certain parts of town, always have bar fights,
there may be rules, but people break rules, even their own, so good advice is to stay away from certain places and people.
It’s a fact of life, in every company’s contract, there’s probably things you won’t like, should you get a lawyer every time you sign something? yes!, logically, but practically, no! Most companies change the rules ‘on the fly’ with disclaimers, so, tough nuts. People are essentially arguing about the way business is actually done in America.
It’s pointless, most ppl here stand up for small developers, yet immediately go to Walmart with the wife and kids on the weekend in favor of ‘big business’ and ‘low prices’.
Business is business.
How many of you hypocrites are willing to pay twice the price so small business can thrive and the chinese can earn a decent pay? Please stand up if that’s you.
(i’ll be sitting quietly in the back of the room, cause i wanna bargain!)
Everyone here probably has an ipod, well guess what?
The music industry is approximately 48x worse than Apple, so when’s the boycott?
Did you know, after the both of you spend time, energy and money on your album, a record label might shelve your LP, not promote it, or simply release you?
Did you know, a lot of you will get laid off just before christmas due to cutbacks? Yet younger, dumber people will be hired for less next spring?
Those who hate Apple now, don’t seem to realize it was, and is, all around you, and always will be,
it’s “business, nothing personal”
Maybe you can move to a log cabin somewhere, and paint
‘happy accidents’ all day in between your anger management classes – ROFLMAO