“It’s under NDA but evidently Apple rejected Microsoft Office for the Mac because it competes with Apple’s iWork. Also, Firefox was rejected because it could confuse users about which to browser to use,” Inner Daemon writes.
“Other candidates on the reject list include NetNewsWire, RealPlayer, and Lightroom,” Inner Daemon writes.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Cupertino, we have a problem.
MacDailyNews Note: For any Windows-only users who may have stumbled here via Google News or via some other conduit: Inner Daemon is making a satirical statement on Apple’s recent App Store for iPhone and iPod touch app rejections based on “duplicating iTunes functionality.” Apple is not “rejecting Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac.” If anything, Apple goes out of their way to promote Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac. For example: Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac. Starting at just $149.95 with free shipping from Apple Store.
Wow, what a waste of bits. This is a lame attempt at humor – LAME!
Define “rejects.”
Jimbo,
You’ve either got an extra chromosome or this one just whooshed right over your head.
It’s making a sharp point and is excellent, concise commentary that clearly points out the inconsistency in Apple’s position App Store rejections.
Please think before you post next time.
I agree with Jimbo… This is a real waste of bits. Must be a real lack of news day…
Long Live Pwnage.
Applesoft is just getting worse and worse…
Give me a break.
It’s like going to Burger King and asking for a Big Mac…
It’s a valid point. Apple’s NDA move made matter worse too.
Begging to differ. Went over my head?!?! Missing chromosome? Really, what part of right field did that come from. I know exactly what the original poster is talking about. My statement is that it’s just not even funny.
Apple is determining what will and will not come out of their store. As I’ve stated many times before, if you don’t like it – tough. It’s their store and they make the rules. They are fully within their rights to change the rules at any time.
The App store is still in its infancy. Apple has decided they can’t give everyone full reign of the store, so they are limiting it to what is best in their opinion. Again, they are fully within their rights.
Maybe they will let these apps through later. Who knows. If you don’t like it, go buy a Blackberry or a Google phone. But don’t act like I don’t know what’s going on.
@I beg to differ:
I am disinclined to acquiesce to your statement. The desktop version of iWork is like any suite application. You can pretty much do anything you want in it. However, for the iPhone, you can only view it. You can’t do a cut and paste. You can’t edit. Pretty much, the only thing you can do with it is to look at it.
While MDN’s take is succint and to the point. It is a bit misleading. It fails to mention the platform utilized, given the circumstances.
This will end up in court some time in the future.
I’m with Jimbo. What are the actual parameters of rejection here? Not sold in store? I’m not a software developer, so I don’t know if/how Apple could “reject” a developer from making software. This seems bogus.
Still, if true, iWork is not a sufficient substitute for Excel or Word yet. So, lame.
Apple *is* in their full right to reject apps, but the reasoning has to be legitimate. Apps that compete with Apple apps should be allowed, period.
@all who like a non-restrictive App Store:
Do you like to live in a world without restrictions? Can you turn to see what happened to the economy?
nuf said.
they have to be so in control of everything on their machine its ridiculous… how about letting the consumer make a decision on what they want to use… Apple inc… is becoming a monopoly 100x worse than windows ever was
I feel like a reject because I actually clicked on the link and read the blog…
Apple IS Apple because quality IS issue.
Witness Apple h/w, s/w, market/w.
I’m not Ferrari. But, I trust that, if Ferrari will not allow a brown tint glove box lid, it’s probably a good idea. I’m too busy otherwise.
I trust my quality makers because of their quality reputation.
Once again this misplaced sarcasm is missed by most readers.
Let it be said again. The iPhone, like the XBox, is a closed system.
If you don’t like it, get over yourselves and vote with your wallets.
You will not be missed.
Use NeoOffice for the Mac
Free/donationware, duplicates most of OfficeMac, reads and writes to it’s files, cross platform/OS, many national languages etc.
In other words it’s the $%^*#!!!
Stick it to Microsoft and their crappy software!!
I can see their point and think that it’s wrong, but at the same time I do appreciate what Apple is trying to do with the App Store. I think that restricting it to iTunes with the install mechanisms they have is good because it gives a uniformity to the process, you’re not actually having to install anything since it’s all automated. If an app somehow hijacked system integration with core Apple apps – such as Contacts – I can see how they would be concerned because it potentially introduces issues for other apps across the board. Managing podcasts, or browsing the net are different though.
I understand the desire to provide some sort of across the board level of quality, or at least a uniform quality, but this will get out of hand – if it hasn’t already. It’s a tricky issue for Apple.
@Apple sucks
Yeah, yup.
And that is relly easy in the computer world.
You know exactly what an application do and that it will never treatens your privacy or installs viruses, trojan horses, worms, etc.
Shit happens. And because of it, someone has to try that the crap doesn’t hit users.
iPhone is a special platform Apple takes a lot of care of.
Peace.
Mac != iPhone
Interesting Considering that the iWork suite is good if you don’t need to share files with MS Office users. Because if you do – iWork is terrible!!!!!
@Jimbo von Winskinheimer: You have obviously had too much Cupertino Kool-Aid™ this morning. Methinks that you should reduce your intake. Apple is great company, with great products, but it is not immune to legitimate criticism.
For all those who didin’t quite get the humour in the original post, it was a joke. The person was trying to imply how this would look if Apple were to control what applications could or could not be installed on a Mac.
Now, this reasoning is obviously very flawed. Desktop computing has been in existence for about 30 years or so. Users’ expectations for desktop performance has been rather consistend throughout those years.
IPhone, on the other hand, has been out for about a year. It has build a specific user expectations with respect to reliability, performance, consistency of user interface and such. However, the number of actual people who have experienced this is rather small. In order to solidify this user expectation and broaden it, they need to maintain firm control over how iPhone will perform in the coming year or two.
iPhone needs to become as ubiquitous as the iPod before any possibility of deterioration of user experience is allowed. All the noise about apps being arbitrarily rejected would be negligible compared to the bad publicity and deterioration of that user experience which could come from the use of problematic applications.
Let’s not forget the perspective here: out of more than 3000 apps, less than a dozen were banned so far — way below 1%. This is totally inconsequential. Not to mention that out of the remaining 2,982 (or more), large percentage are paid apps, for which developers are making solid chunk of change.
The joke quoted in the article is indeed lame and misses the point. In a way, it’s a hit whore.
Once again I will repeat what someone else said weeks ago:
Yea, Windows has tens of thousands of software products to run on it, but how much is that crapware?
How many people download something and it just ruins their user experience?
Apple owns the App Store. They can sell whatever THEY want.
Go to Walmart and demand they sell “Hustler” or “Penthouse” magazines and see how far you get.