How does a guy like this go from a successful self appointed jack of all trades to being such a whiner? Ziff-Davis did not buy you guys out too did they?

Great article. Keep it up and make sure that you're one of many people who try to talk sense and logic. The trick is trying to convince others to speak their mind and remind them that it only counts if they speak sense.

Hear Hear! Great article - enunciates beautifully the fears I've had for Apple for a few years now.

before you write this crap, why don't you spend some research hours learning WHY the app never made it onto the store, instead of speculating that its big bad apple out to get the little guy. ever heard of biting the hand that fees you? 60 days ago there was no market. how about a positive article on the millions of dollars apple is pumping back into the developer community each month. this seems to be going on with a very few whinger developers. the other 99.99% seem to be very happy playing by the rules (which I'll bet are spelled out on the agreement they signed, but can't be disclosed due to NDA).

what about bandwidth for starters. AT&T can't handle what they already have; now you want someone clogging the pipes with more? This is just one idea, i'm sure there were other reasons you could discover.

Quote

Guest wrote:
before you write this crap, why don't you spend some research hours learning WHY the app never made it onto the store, instead of speculating that its big bad apple out to get the little guy. ever heard of biting the hand that feeds you? 60 days ago there was no market. how about a positive article on the millions of dollars apple is pumping back into the developer community each month. this seems to be going on with a very few whinger developers. the other 99.99% seem to be very happy playing by the rules (which I'll bet are spelled out on the agreement they signed, but can't be disclosed due to NDA).

Follow up with this URL. The article says it all.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/16/banned-iphone-apps-and-the-john-gruber-podcaster-defense/

I tell you what, why don't you do the homework since it matters to you? The article is an opinion piece. You may disagree with the opinion, but it was hardly crap. Moreover, there is little research to do on the subject. Apple has told the publisher why the software was rejected. It stated in an email to the offending publisher that the software was not approved because it repeated the functionality of iTunes. That is a pathetic reason. The publisher followed all the written guidelines. If repeating functionality was an issue, Apple should make that clear before the developer wastes time and money. Apple is acting in an anticompetitive manner here. Kind-of the way Microsoft would act. Ironically Apple is biting it's own hand as this developer probably wouldn't have effected Apple at all. However, Apple pulling this application will likely cost Apple developers willing to develop for the iPhone.

Quote

Guest wrote:
before you write this crap, why don't you spend some research hours learning WHY the app never made it onto the store, instead of speculating that its big bad apple out to get the little guy. ever heard of biting the hand that fees you? 60 days ago there was no market. how about a positive article on the millions of dollars apple is pumping back into the developer community each month. this seems to be going on with a very few whinger developers. the other 99.99% seem to be very happy playing by the rules (which I'll bet are spelled out on the agreement they signed, but can't be disclosed due to NDA).

Come on now! What a bunch of sour grapes. Just sell you crapware the same way you did before the App Store started. Do your own marketing, create your own portal set your prices and get both of your customers to purchase your stuff.

OR, write great software and sell it in a CONVENIENT Apple App Store and get lots of exposure. You tell me that Apple is unfair because they give you a great platform and outlet to make money? Try it on your own if you don't like it.

In my humble opinion, Apple treats developers like puppets -- not partners.

Is Mr. Crap slinger aka SJ?

Possible?

I cannot agree with your editorial. If someone decided to to use your url, ending your access to your domain, would you consider that a fair way of doing business. It is yours and you have the exclusive rights to use it as you see fit. It is your investment and the proceeds from it that are derived from sponsors end up on your cash flow and balance sheets. If you find that this is untrue, I would like to request that I be able to post my web site and link on your web page, oh and if you wouldn't mind, could you pay me for the privilege of pilfering your readers and followers. What is it that you do not understand about proprietary rights? Furthermore, if you were a publicly traded entity (AAPL), would you be willing to stand in front of your potentially litigious share-holder sand give them the good news that you were no longer willing to perform your fiduciary duties? I think that I understand what you would like to see Apple do with it's Apps, but would you really do that if you had a Director's responsibility? I wouldn't.

Quote

Terrin wrote:
I tell you what, why don't you do the homework since it matters to you? The article is an opinion piece. You may disagree with the opinion, but it was hardly crap. Moreover, there is little research to do on the subject. Apple has told the publisher why the software was rejected. It stated in an email to the offending publisher that the software was not approved because it repeated the functionality of iTunes. That is a pathetic reason. The publisher followed all the written guidelines. If repeating functionality was an issue, Apple should make that clear before the developer wastes time and money. Apple is acting in an anticompetitive manner here. Kind-of the way Microsoft would act. Ironically Apple is biting it's own hand as this developer probably wouldn't have effected Apple at all. However, Apple pulling this application will likely cost Apple developers willing to develop for the iPhone.

Quote

Guest wrote:
before you write this crap, why don't you spend some research hours learning WHY the app never made it onto the store, instead of speculating that its big bad apple out to get the little guy. ever heard of biting the hand that fees you? 60 days ago there was no market. how about a positive article on the millions of dollars apple is pumping back into the developer community each month. this seems to be going on with a very few whinger developers. the other 99.99% seem to be very happy playing by the rules (which I'll bet are spelled out on the agreement they signed, but can't be disclosed due to NDA).

the device has been out just over a year. At first, the only way to develop for the platform at all was to jailbreak and hack, or write web apps. now they are on version 2 and there is a store.

I'll bet that within time, you'll see the device grow to exactly what you envision.

anyone remember what developer's tools (for any platform) cost in the early 80's? How about now?

As always there are always a few angles to look at something...

Apple does have a right to control the delivery system and they have a history of exercising that right. Closed hardware, closed software and now with the Apple stores (physical locations) and iTunes store they decide what to sell and what not to.

I think the author needs to understand that even it it's an electronic/internet store, Apple still gets to control what they sell. You can't blame them. A physical store would do/does the same thing.

Take WalMart for example, to sell your products at WalMart you have play by WalMart's rules. The company I used to work for had to redo all their case packs so they can get to WalMart's customer base. And were denied many times until the case pack met WalMart's approval.

Does Apple have to let Dell sell their computes at Apple stores because Apple is selling their own computers? That wouldn't make sense and neither does allowing this developer offer a similar product Apple already offers on the iPhone. So Apple chose to deny it.

The iPhone developer isn't without options. It can sell their wares direct to the customer or at another store. Is it going to be harder and cost more money? Yeah probably. But if you want to be in the iTunes store you have to play by the rules Apple lays out.

Do I think it stinks for this particular developer? Sure, but it isn't necessarily wrong nor does it make Apple a monopoly.

Well thought out, as is per-usual for John.

One thing to keep in mind: Apple does not own the content it provides access to via its Podcast listing. Apple has WAY too much power over the popularity of podcasts, usually featuring those shows which have friends with the right people at Apple. All Podcaster does (and I actually have the App, as the developer sent it to me weeks ago) is give the user a search tool and the ability to download and listen to podcasts. It does NOT replace iTunes, but DOES give the end user (YOU) the ability to be more flexible in getting quality content where and how you want.

There is no doubt that, at least in this case, Apple is indeed working as a monopoly and not being a good partner to its developers. And while the iPhone is not an open platform for development, and developers have to agree to the lopsided agreement Apple forces them to accept in whole, the wording is vague and not entirely fair.

Apple has a moral obligation to its developers to be fair, and in this case, Apple is not.

Martellaro's editorial and the responses to it make an interesting parallel to the
McCain/Obama campaigns.

John, in the role of concerned ally, raises a warning flag about a possible slippery slope. His cautionary editorial makes sense to me.

Apple folks, raw from years of too-pervasive MSFT/PC attacks, react as though JM were a Gates surrogate; in a flashback to the 60's "America: Love It Or Leave It" bumperstickers. Anything less than a rave review is dismissed as Anti-Apple "crap".

Apple, as a corporation, strikes me as a good guy who sometimes seems to act like a bad guy, unnecessarily. And then compounds the error by refusing to explain itself or correct its course.

This isn't smart.

Re: the app controversy, what Apple needs to do is exhibit a reasonable degree of transparency; explain its actions a tad more, and exercise more flexibility in its policies.

We (who love Apple designs, products, and user-orientation) don't need to create our own ghetto mentality.

Do you live in a fairy tale land? If you don't like something then you have a choice of working around and finding the solution.

?Some developers demand Apple try to communicate better, lest they assume the worst of the platform vendor. While that sounds plenty reasonable at face value, given the curatorial demands on the fledgling state of the App Store platform and Apple?s overall reliance on product-plan secrecy, we shouldn?t realistically expect Apple to ?open up? anytime soon,? as I explain in:

Resolved: Apple is right to curate the App Store
http://counternotions.com/2008/09/15/app-store/

Quote

Terrin wrote:
Apple has told the publisher why the software was rejected. It stated in an email to the offending publisher that the software was not approved because it repeated the functionality of iTunes. That is a pathetic reason. The publisher followed all the written guidelines.

Thanks for writing that. I was going to reply but you beat me to it.

It apparently states in Paragraph 3.3.3 of the NDA that you're not allowed to make software that bypasses iTunes to download content to the iPhone / iPod touch. In that respect he clearly violated the terms of the agreement.

Developers (which I'm a iPhone developer-in-training) may not like that paragraph, but it's clearly written. Apple can't be blamed if people don't pay attention to <i>all</i> the guidelines.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Terrin wrote:
Apple has told the publisher why the software was rejected. It stated in an email to the offending publisher that the software was not approved because it repeated the functionality of iTunes. That is a pathetic reason. The publisher followed all the written guidelines.

No, he didn't. The license agreement explicitly prohibits any applications that attempt to bypass iTunes for the download of content.

What's pathetic is that so many haven't bothered to check the facts on this issue.

crap nanny phone

I agree, Apple is showing signs of becoming a 'big bad corporation'. This is unfortunate but not surprising.

People forget that the purpose of corporations is to make money. If they can do that by being a really good citizen and encouraging the little guy then great. We all sing the praises of XYZ Corporation. If they can do it by stifling competition and using their power to squash the little guy then we all complain how terrible XYZ Corporation is.

The issue is that companies have no moral nor ethical dimension. They exist to make money. That Apple is doing this kind of thing is not a surprise. That Google is treading heavily on the 'Don't Be Evil' concept is not a surprise.

Corporations are about money, not being nice.

I am wondering from where comes this attitude that Apple must allow competing applications on THEIR OWN STORE, or they are being "anti-competition".

Pasture cookies.

You do not see other stores carrying competitor's brands. As was pointed out above, no one is complaining that you cannot find Dell computers in an Apple store.

As for electronic stores, no one complains that they cannot find Paint Shop Pro on Adobe's online store.

So what is with all the "Apple is playing the bad guy" because they won't help sell Podcaster from their site? The notion is ridiculous.

If Podcast is a goo d application it will sell on its own merits and make the developer money. He has no "moral right" to demand Apple sell it for him. The App Store is like any other store - owned by a company with company interests and every right to determine what is and is not offered from their virtual shelves.

Only a moron would expect a company to create a platform for its rivals to exploit. If any app could negatively affect Apple in any tiny way, it should not be allowed. Let that developer sell his app to Apple's rivals.

As a small, high tech company founder and CEO for 20 years near Silicon Valley, I fully understand and agree with what Apple did with Podcaster as they rejected it as duplicating functions of iTunes. Apple's iTunes store supports their 70% of the online music business and is a source of profit and brand recognition. Apple spent an enormous amount of millions developing iTunes and the iPods. They have every right to protect that investment. Rejecting one iPhone developer for this is nothing, not even a blip on the short or long range plans for Apple. And it deprives us, the consumer, of nothing. If I want songs downloaded I go to iTunes and snap! in a moment I have what I want and need. Zip quick, simple, easy.

The cries and screams on situation like this seem to always come from the loud and very small minority of Apple users who want everything open and free and the heck with copyrights. Sure you have your opinion and I have mine. In this case, no harm no foul. Next time, iPhone developers should do a bit of research when they plan to overlap an Apple program and submit a business plan for the software long before they start writing code. That would have been the smart way to go.

That might be a reasonable argument if Apple provided a way for developers to load unsigned applications without jailbreaking the phone.

Since they do not allow for that legally, your argument is invalid.

The application will NOT sell on its own merits, since there is nowhere to sell it. You have to jailbreak your phone to install non-App-Store apps, and 99% of iPhone owners won't do that for fear of bricking their phones, therefore there is no practical market for non-App-Store apps.

Also, your "store" analogy is completely off-base. First of all, Apple is not just a "store", they are providing a PLATFORM for new applications. Second, in your Adobe example, Adobe provides PhotoShop developers with an API to create plug-ins and extensions (i.e., they provide a PLATFORM). Many of the extensions that 3rd party developers have created duplicate and extend functionality already in PhotoShop, and Adobe provides links to them on their own website.

Furthermore, in the case in question, allowing the podcasting app would make more money for Apple. The ability to listen to podcasts is just assumed with an iPod. It's not a value-added selling point, so no extra sales will come strictly from this feature. If the DO choose to allow to sell the podcasting app, they get 30% of all sales.

It makes no business sense and no ethical sense to disallow selling this app.

And as a final point, even if this is Apple's position and they choose to stick to it (and as you point out, it is technically their right to have useless, foolish business practices), then they should fully disclose that and any other conditions for accepting an app into the store.

As an iPhone developer myself, I would be furious (not to mention litigious) if I had spent hundreds or thousands of hours working on a game or app, only to have Apple reject it because it conflicted with some unwritten submission guideline.

Firstly, I'm not commenting at all about the Podcaster app. I want to comment on "Apple is no longer the underdog in many areas. It's not fighting the worthy fight to survive and flourish. Rather, it's fighting to preserve its status quo in a music" and "I can do as I please because no one can stop me."

Apple has fought a very very long and hard battle in both the computer industry and the music industry. It's not easy jumping to #1 in music sales against corporations like Wal*Mart and Amazon. Just because they are now #1, it doesn't mean that their job is any easier or that they will stay there so while they may not be fighting to survive and flourish, they are protecting their hard-earned and well-deserved turf.

Also, I do not think they are simply doing what they please to do because no one can stop them. On the contrary, if they don't do what they have to do, someone WILL stop them.

Now I'm not saying that Apple is a company that does not make mistakes. Heck, they even take a long time to own up to their mistakes sometimes. However, they usually end up doing right by the customer. Sometimes, you don't always get what you want, but hey, we're all adults and that's life. No company in the world will ever be able to do something that will please everyone. It's a balance of making a profit (yes, they do want to make a profit!), doing the right thing and pleasing the customer.

Tim Robinson said:
"Apple has WAY too much power over the popularity of podcasts ..."

This is a very misleading statement. While Apple does have a lot of control over PodCasts, anyone who has been into podcasts for any length of time knows that the "market" for them would not exist at all without Apple.

PodCasts are user created, which means that they are necessarily something like 90% junk. That's why they are mostly free. I subscribe to only the very best, high quality video podcasts, and they *regularly* fail to sync, fail to be compiled in a format that is viewable on the Mac, and regularly fail in many other ways as well. Again, if they were not free and provided to you in a handy central repository like iTunes, no one would be interested and the whole "ecosystem" would never have got off the ground.

To turn around now, ... just at the point where Apple is beginning to see a tiny bit of success, and try to characterise the situation as a monopolist over-controlling Apple that has too much power over the innocent yearning to be free PodCasters is a serious misrepresentation of what the situation actually is.

Quote

Guest wrote:
As an iPhone developer myself, I would be furious (not to mention litigious) if I had spent hundreds or thousands of hours working on a game or app, only to have Apple reject it because it conflicted with some unwritten submission guideline.

Having read the iPhone SDK agreement, there seems to be no such requirement that I can see. Until you can show otherwise, my argument stands.

This is the iPhone SDK agreement (although you have to be logged in to read it):

http://adcdownload.apple.com/iphone/iphone_sdk_for_iphone_os_2.1__9m2517/iphone_sdk_agt_608_final.pdf

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Terrin wrote:
Apple has told the publisher why the software was rejected. It stated in an email to the offending publisher that the software was not approved because it repeated the functionality of iTunes. That is a pathetic reason. The publisher followed all the written guidelines.

No, he didn't. The license agreement explicitly prohibits any applications that attempt to bypass iTunes for the download of content.

What's pathetic is that so many haven't bothered to check the facts on this issue.

The writer of this article obviously did not do any homework as stated by others. Don't forget we are talking about a phone here where if an application malfunctions can take advantage of some interfaces and information and sent it through a 3G pipe. That's a good reason why people pay money for applications intead of risking getting crapy spyware from jailbroken apps

That's exactly right. This device also tells where you are located. Does anybody like an app that does not even ask for permission to use the GPS or the phonebook or anything private in the phone?

Apple made smartphones work because they partnered closely with the carrier to address carrier concerns - network security, network traffic, business model. Carriers are very concerned about what applications can do to thier networks and subscribers. Look to practical necessity before you try to psychoanalyze a company culture.

I enjoyed it. Was parallel to a lot of thoughts I had on the same topic.

I wrote a bit of a tangent here:

http://lolrus.org/archives/77

Quote

mikelikespie wrote:
I wrote a bit of a tangent here:

http://lolrus.org/archives/77

Quote

Apple has done nothing but thwart open source movements...?Indie? mac developers generally suck at making useful products...Although [ Apple ] hired stole a bunch of GCC developers and have invested heavily in LLVM, I have a feeling very little is contributed up stream that?s useful to the rest of the open source community.

In a free market economy merchants can pick and choose what they sell in their stores. Every retailer from WalMart to the corner stationery store chose their stock very carefully. WalMart rejects thousands of hopeful sellers every month. As a retired retailer I find this discussion sort of ridiculous. We all have to deal with rejection in life. This developer needs to grow up.

You can't agree with my view that John is entitled to his opinion, and that his editorial doesn't deserve to be called crap? Strange. More importantly, I am an attorney. I am familiar with a publicly traded companies executive board's fiduciary duties to it's shareholders. Courts interpret these duties very liberally in favor of executives. As a shareholder, I want Apple to encourage developers to develop for Apple's hardware. As a person, I want Apple to be fair in it's dealings with others. Apple's approach here is neither. More importantly, Apple arguably is engaging in illegal anticompetitive behavior. As a shareholder, I certainly don't want to see this end up in court under a theory of anticompetitive behavior where Apple is on fair shakier legal grounds then a lawsuit by shareholders. Apple could solve the problem by being more forthcoming about it's guidelines for publishing such software.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I cannot agree with your editorial. If someone decided to to use your url, ending your access to your domain, would you consider that a fair way of doing business. It is yours and you have the exclusive rights to use it as you see fit. It is your investment and the proceeds from it that are derived from sponsors end up on your cash flow and balance sheets. If you find that this is untrue, I would like to request that I be able to post my web site and link on your web page, oh and if you wouldn't mind, could you pay me for the privilege of pilfering your readers and followers. What is it that you do not understand about proprietary rights? Furthermore, if you were a publicly traded entity (AAPL), would you be willing to stand in front of your potentially litigious share-holder sand give them the good news that you were no longer willing to perform your fiduciary duties? I think that I understand what you would like to see Apple do with it's Apps, but would you really do that if you had a Director's responsibility? I wouldn't.

Quote

Terrin wrote:
I tell you what, why don't you do the homework since it matters to you? The article is an opinion piece. You may disagree with the opinion, but it was hardly crap. Moreover, there is little research to do on the subject. Apple has told the publisher why the software was rejected. It stated in an email to the offending publisher that the software was not approved because it repeated the functionality of iTunes. That is a pathetic reason. The publisher followed all the written guidelines. If repeating functionality was an issue, Apple should make that clear before the developer wastes time and money. Apple is acting in an anticompetitive manner here. Kind-of the way Microsoft would act. Ironically Apple is biting it's own hand as this developer probably wouldn't have effected Apple at all. However, Apple pulling this application will likely cost Apple developers willing to develop for the iPhone.

Quote

Guest wrote:
before you write this crap, why don't you spend some research hours learning WHY the app never made it onto the store, instead of speculating that its big bad apple out to get the little guy. ever heard of biting the hand that fees you? 60 days ago there was no market. how about a positive article on the millions of dollars apple is pumping back into the developer community each month. this seems to be going on with a very few whinger developers. the other 99.99% seem to be very happy playing by the rules (which I'll bet are spelled out on the agreement they signed, but can't be disclosed due to NDA).

Blocking an app? Like this is one of Apple?s more significant problems? I had never heard or seen Steve Jobs speak until a recent interview was shown on the net after Apple?s ?Let?s Rock? campaign. It was just Jobs & an interviewer. My take? Geez, this guy is not only smug & arrogant, he?s totally boring & uninformative besides! Yeesh ? I own this stock? Why oh why?.

If Jobs does care about people ? his customers, staff, shareholders, & the world at large ? he sure didn?t put that across in this interview. Not in a sincere, believable way anyhow. Sure, he said how much he wanted to please his customers & how hard he & Apple work to do that - but not in a way that made me believe one iota of it. The guy was simply bland, cavalier, & insincere-sounding. The end. Had I known, I would?ve never bought stock in Apple.

I honestly don?t care about what phones or iPods or applications Apple will or won?t supply, support, produce or procure. I want Jobs & his company to give a damn ? about something/anything but lining their pockets & patting themselves on the back. I thought the company was trying to make computing easier & more interesting for the masses. I?m a plain-?ol American, & I?m telling you Wall Street & Steve Jobs: Giving a damn sells.

Business is not just about making money ? never has been & never will be. That?s because you can not create or maintain a successful business by being a bully or creating bad will. See? Plain ?ol common sense.

Caring about what your customers, your stock-holders, & your employees think & feel is what makes a company great, and ultimately, successful, even if their service &/or product isn?t the absolute best in the world. I?ll even buy stock in a beat-up company if I feel like they give a hoot, & as long as they provide a good product or service that makes our world a better place. They may not be rock-stars in the market, but steady & practical have won the race more times than not throughout history. Is this a bunch of altruistic crap? I don?t think so. I think millions of Americans would appreciate a return to simple common sense & good manners ? yup, even in the stock markets! What?s not to like?

Just take a look at Warren Buffett?s Berkshire Hathaway ? up this last month while the market crashes all around. Why? Because he sticks to ?Old Fashioned? basics: Basic common sense; Basic good manners shown by way of practical & rational stewardship; Basic understanding of what we all want through time immemorial? to improve our lives & the world around us. What?s so hard to get about any of this?

Altruistic, ?Old Fashioned?, ?Pollyanna? crap, or, basic common sense? You decide ? I already have.

Blocking an app? Like this is one of Apple?s more significant problems? I had never heard or seen Steve Jobs speak until a recent interview was shown on the net after Apple?s ?Let?s Rock? campaign. It was just Jobs & an interviewer. My take? Geez, this guy is not only smug & arrogant, he?s totally boring & uninformative besides! Yeesh ? I own this stock? Why oh why?.

If Jobs does care about people ? his customers, staff, shareholders, & the world at large ? he sure didn?t put that across in this interview. Not in a sincere, believable way anyhow. Sure, he said how much he wanted to please his customers & how hard he & Apple work to do that - but not in a way that made me believe one iota of it. The guy was simply bland, cavalier, & insincere-sounding. The end. Had I known, I would?ve never bought stock in Apple.

I honestly don?t care about what phones or iPods or applications Apple will or won?t supply, support, produce or procure. I want Jobs & his company to give a damn ? about something/anything but lining their pockets & patting themselves on the back. I thought the company was trying to make computing easier & more interesting for the masses. I?m a plain-?ol American, & I?m telling you Wall Street & Steve Jobs: Giving a damn sells.

Business is not just about making money ? never has been & never will be. That?s because you can not create or maintain a successful business by being a bully or creating bad will. See? Plain ?ol common sense.

Caring about what your customers, your stock-holders, & your employees think & feel is what makes a company great, and ultimately, successful, even if their service &/or product isn?t the absolute best in the world. I?ll even buy stock in a beat-up company if I feel like they give a hoot, & as long as they provide a good product or service that makes our world a better place. They may not be rock-stars in the market, but steady & practical have won the race more times than not throughout history. Is this a bunch of altruistic crap? I don?t think so. I think millions of Americans would appreciate a return to simple common sense & good manners ? yup, even in the stock markets! What?s not to like?

Just take a look at Warren Buffett?s Berkshire Hathaway ? up this last month while the market crashes all around. Why? Because he sticks to ?Old Fashioned? basics: Basic common sense; Basic good manners shown by way of practical & rational stewardship; Basic understanding of what we all want through time immemorial? to improve our lives & the world around us. What?s so hard to get about any of this?

Altruistic, ?Old Fashioned?, ?Pollyanna? crap, or, basic common sense? You decide ? I already have.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
I am wondering from where comes this attitude that Apple must allow competing applications on THEIR OWN STORE, or they are being &quot;anti-competition&quot;.

I think your analogy is faulty. Walmart doesn't promote open access for merchandise to be sold at it's stores. A manufacturer has to actually convince a Walmart buyer to purchase the product for the store. Before the seller manufactures the product, Walmart signs a purchase order. That protects the manufacture's investment. Moreover, a product that can be sold in Walmart can be sold anywhere. Further, Walmart only sells merchandise and doesn't manufacture any itself.

On the other hand, Apple does publicly promote the idea of a free market where any application can be sold in it's stores. Apple is a manufacturer of merchandise. Apple doesn't own the hardware where software will ultimately be installed. More importantly, an interested developer has to spend time and money to develop the application that only works on the iPhone. Only after the developer develops the application does Apple give it's blessing. That system isn't fair because it's guidelines are vague. The developer of Podcaster had no reason to believe it's application wouldn't be accepted amongst the thousand of other accepted applications. In fact, it was reasonable to suspect that it's application would be accepted. To deny the developer access to the store after the developer spend time and money, is unfair. The fault is Apple's. All it had to do is publish guidelines that claimed any application repeating features found in iTunes wouldn't be allowed to be sold on the store.

Quote

Guest wrote:
In a free market economy merchants can pick and choose what they sell in their stores. Every retailer from WalMart to the corner stationery store chose their stock very carefully. WalMart rejects thousands of hopeful sellers every month. As a retired retailer I find this discussion sort of ridiculous. We all have to deal with rejection in life. This developer needs to grow up.

What are you talking about. Again, Apple has publicly offered it's reason for denying the application. It's publically stated reasons have nothing to do with what you suggest. Perhaps you should do some research.

Quote

Guest wrote:
The writer of this article obviously did not do any homework as stated by others. Don't forget we are talking about a phone here where if an application malfunctions can take advantage of some interfaces and information and sent it through a 3G pipe. That's a good reason why people pay money for applications intead of risking getting crapy spyware from jailbroken apps

Hold on a second, Microsoft didn't get in trouble because they exercised restraint on the companies that wrote software for their platform. They got in trouble because they held a 92% market share! Apple might have a 10% market share today?
When Apple holds 90% of the market, then and only then will they have to be careful about their proprieties.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Depending on how you define the market for iPhone, it can be argued that the development platform for iPhone is a monopoly.

This is why I said "depending on how you define the market..."

One way to get Apple in trouble would be to demonstrate that their development platform is the dominant platform for developing smart-phone applications. This may not be the case right now (there are several other platforms), but may become the case in the nearest future.

If you define the market more narrowly, and consider only 3G smart-phones with touch-screen functionality, Apple may already be in trouble. The definition of the market is everything in these cases and lawyers get paid a lot of money to argue cases both ways.

I would like to see the opinions of the Apple supporters, if MSFT decided to tinker with windows to make Firefox/Safari not work properly on Windows. After all its thier OS, they can do what they want right. I bet the same Apple crowd will detest MSFT for it. Oh wait they already cite this as a reason. They just don't realize when Apple does it. Apples is the next Microsoft.
What everyone is forgetting here is once the phone and the OS on it is sold, who ever buys it should be able to use it fairly. The way IPhone works now is like saying asking somebody to use XYZ cable company to buy a TV. Apple should stay out of the way how anyone might want to use the equipment for. Not to mention forcing specific service providers. I guess the Italians and Australians have better sense of consumer rights.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
What everyone is forgetting here is once the phone and the OS on it is sold, who ever buys it should be able to use it fairly...Apple should stay out of the way how anyone might want to use the equipment for.