Why having the Apple App Store as the only source is a bad thing....

wsuffa

wsuffa

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
23,615
Location
DC Suburbs
Display Name
Display name:
Bill S.
One more reason to not buy an Apple until they open up programming and content to sources other than the App store:

Editorial cartoonist Mark Fiore may be good enough to win this year’s Pulitzer Prize, but he’s evidently too biting to get past the auditors who run Apple’s iPhone app store, who ruled that lampooning public figures violated its terms of service.

Fiore irked Apple’s censorious staffers with his cartoons making fun of the Balloon Boy hoax and the pair that famously crashed a White House party, according to Laura McGann at the Neiman Journalism Lab.
Click to expand...

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/apple-bans-satire/

Didn't someone here posit that Apple would not censor based on content?

Article in today's WaPo:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2010/04/apple_refuses_pulitzer_winners.html
 
wsuffa said:
Didn't someone here posit that Apple would not censor based on content?
Click to expand...
I don't think so, but if I am wrong perhaps you could post who did. Apple most certainly is well known for censoring content as they clearly do not sanction porn and other controversial topics. The app store is a distribution hub and anyone is free to start up their own distribution of a function. Why should Apple be forced to distribute items that they don't want to?
 
Scott- I thought (I guess incorrectly) that all iApps had to go through Apple.
 
ScottM said:
I don't think so, but if I am wrong perhaps you could post who did. Apple most certainly is well known for censoring content as they clearly do not sanction porn and other controversial topics. The app store is a distribution hub and anyone is free to start up their own distribution of a function. Why should Apple be forced to distribute items that they don't want to?
Click to expand...
You are not free to start up your own way to distribute apps on the iPhone. The *ONLY WAY* to develop and distribute an iPhone app is to pay Apple for their sdk license and hope you can get your app approved and on their app store.

Android is different - you're free to start your own marketplace to distribute apps and people have.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Scott- I thought (I guess incorrectly) that all iApps had to go through Apple.
Click to expand...

Then buy another platform.

Stuff like the 1st Amendment don't apply to non-governmental actors. If Apple wants to censor their content, nobody is (yet) demanding that you buy their products. Don't like the stuff they censor, buy from someone else.
 
JeffDG said:
Then buy another platform.

Stuff like the 1st Amendment don't apply to non-governmental actors. If Apple wants to censor their content, nobody is (yet) demanding that you buy their products. Don't like the stuff they censor, buy from someone else.
Click to expand...
Jeff- I wasn't complaining about Apple...where did you pick that up in my post?
 
It is mildly amusing to observe the happy-talk Apple universe in action.

As noted above, don't likey, don't buy-ey.

Still puts a black-eye on the edgy individualist vibe so sought-after by the fruitsters.
 
It is a peculiar situation because the iphone has a web browser, obviously, and thus the ability to access all manner of content. So these little icons over here take you into a bunch of different walled gardens, but that other little icon over there takes you to a world of bestiality porn and videos of people pooping on each other.
-harry
 
jesse said:
You are not free to start up your own way to distribute apps on the iPhone. The *ONLY WAY* to develop and distribute an iPhone app is to pay Apple for their sdk license and hope you can get your app approved and on their app store.

Android is different - you're free to start your own marketplace to distribute apps and people have.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point. Hence the initial line of my initial post....

mantakos said:
It is a peculiar situation because the iphone has a web browser, obviously, and thus the ability to access all manner of content. So these little icons over here take you into a bunch of different walled gardens, but that other little icon over there takes you to a world of bestiality porn and videos of people pooping on each other.
-harry
Click to expand...

Well, not necessarily. Apple has banned Flash from the device(s) - making some sites unusable, and has gone so far as to rewrite their licensing agreement to screw developers that don't use their development tools: Link. So not only is content restricted, but also the tools used to create content are restricted.
 
jesse said:
You are not free to start up your own way to distribute apps on the iPhone. The *ONLY WAY* to develop and distribute an iPhone app is to pay Apple for their sdk license and hope you can get your app approved and on their app store.

Android is different - you're free to start your own marketplace to distribute apps and people have.
Click to expand...
hmmm I wonder how we got all these specialized apps got on out iTouches to demonstrate wireless applications that are not available at the Apple app store? I'll let our research people know that they do not exist and have never been distributed to anyone. :)

I am surprised you do not know about these hacks and ways around the app store?

As I said, "there are ways around it", but I am also sure we have a license to do go outside of the normal Apple limitations.

Since there are actually ways to distribute content without having to use iTunes and the Apple store, as we do in an enterprise research situation and other hackers do illegally (mostly through the jailbreak community), it will only be a matter of time before someone starts up a way around it on a massive scale without Apple's permission. I am willing to be that Asia will be where that comes from.

The simple truth is that it is Apple pool and they dictate the look and feel for their experience. This is not so different than what you are reading about when it come to the open Internet issues that have poped up in the courts. You already no longer own content on your devices, you are basically just licensing it. Why should anyone expect this to be different?
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
hmmm I wonder how we got all these specialized apps got on out iTouches to demonstrate wireless applications that are not available at the Apple app store? I'll let our research people know that they do not exist and have never been distributed to anyone. :)

I am surprised you do not know about these hacks and ways around the app store?
Click to expand...
Don't be a jerk Scott - I know there are some rare situations where things can be developed and distributed around the store. But that isn't ever intended for mass distribution. I'm rather surprised that you seem to be saying users have a choice to use another marketplace, that is crap. If you jail-break you'll void your warranty. The hacked firmwares are usually way behind the curve and they have been packaged with malware.

ScottM said:
As I said, "there are ways around it", but I am also sure we have a license to do go outside of the normal Apple limitations.
Click to expand...
Sure. But you can't mass distribute the app to the entire world and not many people can get such a license.

ScottM said:
Since there are actually ways to distribute content without having to use iTunes and the Apple store, as we do in an enterprise research situation and other hackers do illegally (mostly through the jailbreak community), it will only be a matter of time before someone starts up a way around it on a massive scale without Apple's permission. I am willing to be that Asia will be where that comes from.
Click to expand...
Sure if you have a jailbroken phone you could use some other third party marketplace. But that doesn't mean Apple won't try to sue the **** out of you. Not only will they do that - they'll do their damnest to block it with their software updates. Hardly something any use wants to deal with.

Apple is acting the way they're acting because they don't want it to be EASY to develop applications that'll work on both Android and the iPhone. It has nothing to do with controlling the user experience, the sdk helps with that, it has to do with controlling the platform.

I own an iPhone but I personally think Apple is shooting themselves in the foot long term with all this over-control.
 
ScottM said:
I am pretty sure there are way around that and hacks that make some sort of flash op a reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZO3AmquvSk
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/hack-enables-flash-on-iphone/
Click to expand...
That is a flash runtime written in javascript and is SLOW as ****. Wouldn't be useful for any real application. Not only is it slow as **** using it to develop an application is a violation of apple's license.

The fact of the matter is - if you want to develop a useful application for the iPhone you have to develop it using their SDK and you have to distribute it through their App Store. If you try to do it any other way it's going to suck and there won't be but a couple users that can actually use the application. If Apple does not approve your application that you just put a great deal of effort into creating you're **** out of luck.
 
jesse said:
I own an iPhone but I personally think Apple is shooting themselves in the foot long term with all this over-control.
Click to expand...

And that is precisely why the PC got such a big lead over Apple originally - open standards. It can be argued whether that's good or bad, but that's what it is.

Apple is creating a walled garden, much like AOL did. They do have the support in this effort from AT&T, who does have a very vested interest in keeping control of content (example: the Skype controversy).

Hopefully, this will go the way of AOL.
 
wsuffa said:
And that is precisely why the PC got such a big lead over Apple originally - open standards. It can be argued whether that's good or bad, but that's what it is.

Apple is creating a walled garden, much like AOL did. They do have the support in this effort from AT&T, who does have a very vested interest in keeping control of content (example: the Skype controversy).

Hopefully, this will go the way of AOL.
Click to expand...
I do agree with what you are saying. The Apple people will argue that the machine runs better with well behaved applications, and Apple's barrier keeps out the BASIC wannabees and script kiddy virus writers.

I remember mentioning the cost of Apple programming tools in another thread (the early days of the Mac) and one of the Apple Kool-Aid drinkers tossed a bunch of revisionist history at me...glad to see my memory wasn't all gone.

I personally don't like a computer I can't program myself, even if it is at a fairly simple way.
 
jesse said:
Don't be a jerk Scott - I know there are some rare situations where things can be developed and distributed around the store.
Click to expand...
I wasn't sorry you feel that your answer was the only correct answer and are getting so defensive when corrected with information that shows the possibility to work around the limitation of the app store. The world is a bigger place than Lincoln, NE. Perhaps as you continue your career you will be exposed to more than the IT world.


jesse said:
But that isn't ever intended for mass distribution.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by mass distribution? You can get licenses and the capability to distribute in the enterprise markets. I should pause perhaps and ask if you are familiar with what that market it? It is rather large and specialized.

jesse said:
I'm rather surprised that you seem to be saying users have a choice to use another marketplace, that is crap. If you jail-break you'll void your warranty. The hacked firmwares are usually way behind the curve and they have been packaged with malware.
Click to expand...
I used it to show that people are already working outside of the bounds of the Apple store and in places, like Asia, it is very common. The rules are not followed outside of the tiny island called America. Asia has massive amounts of grey market devices and services.


jesse said:
Sure if you have a jailbroken phone you could use some other third party marketplace. But that doesn't mean Apple won't try to sue the **** out of you. Not only will they do that - they'll do their damnest to block it with their software updates. Hardly something any use wants to deal with.
Click to expand...
Depends on the laws of the country, the trademark and IPR laws of that country and a whole lot of other factors. The fact is, and perhaps you are just not as well traveled in these matters, is that it is happening.

jesse said:
Apple is acting the way they're acting because they don't want it to be EASY to develop applications that'll work on both Android and the iPhone. It has nothing to do with controlling the user experience, the sdk helps with that, it has to do with controlling the platform.

I own an iPhone but I personally think Apple is shooting themselves in the foot long term with all this over-control.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but their limitation predated Android so I think that they still like to have control on the way the user interacts with their technology.
 
Last edited:
wsuffa said:
Well, not necessarily. Apple has banned Flash from the device(s) ...
Click to expand...
Flash is a popular way to deliver video on the internet, but it's not the only way. You can deliver video to the iphone browser, you just have to use a different encoding. So you're limited to content that's been specially "formatted" for the iphone, and this is a subset of the content that's out there, but where there's dudez, there's porn, and there are sites out there to serve that customer base.
So not only is content restricted, but also the tools used to create content are restricted.
Click to expand...
Yes, a move presumably intended to make it more difficult for developers to "develop once, deliver to multiple platforms", which threatens Apple's lead in apps.
-harry
 
ScottM said:
I wasn't sorry you feel that your answer was the only correct answer and are getting so defensive when corrected with information that shows the possibility to work around the limitation of the app store. The world is a bigger place than Lincoln, NE. Perhaps as you continue your career you will be exposed to more than the IT world.
Click to expand...
To start - I'm not going to engage in any conversation with you if you can't handle treating people with respect while doing it. My patience with your lack of respect is running extremely thin.

ScottM said:
What do you mean by mass distribution? You can get licenses and the capability to distribute in the enterprise markets. I should pause perhaps and ask if you are familiar with what that market it? It is rather large and specialized.
Click to expand...
The enterprise channel of the SDK permits you to develop in-house applications that you can release to users in your company. I don't see where I said such a thing did not exist. All this does is provide you with the ability to distribute the app to your employees instead of the world.

Apple reserves the right to reject your in-house enterprise application if it is in violation of their terms.

ScottM said:
I used it to show that people are already working outside of the bounds of the Apple store and in places, like Asia, it is very common. The rules are not followed outside of the tiny island called America. Asia has massive amounts of grey market devices and services.
Click to expand...
One would be an absolute fool to try and develop an application on a platform in a way that contradicts the license of the platform. At any moment you can get shutdown and Apple does their damnest to update their firmware to stop you. I don't consider this a viable method of releasing software. I stand by that statement.

ScottM said:
Depends on the laws of the country, the trademark and IPR laws of that country and a whole lot of other factors. The fact is, and perhaps you are just not as well traveled in these matters, is that it is happening.
Click to expand...
I am a lot more "traveled" than you think and am quite familiar with both Android and the iPhone. I haven't released an application for either platform publically but do understand it very well.

I really don't understand what you're arguing Scott. You seem to be trying to suggest that releasing applications in ways that violate the license of the SDK is a viable way to release software and something that regular users are capable of taking advantage of. None of the above is true. There is a very small subset of users that would buy an iPhone with the intent of using apps only available if the phone is jailbroken.
 
jesse said:
To start - I'm not going to engage in any conversation with you if you can't handle treating people with respect while doing it. My patience with your lack of respect is running extremely thin.
Click to expand...
LOL Jessie. You start out by calling me a jerk and then you complain about a lack of respect. I am not even going to read your reply any further you are not worth my time in trying to share my decades of experience and knowledge as an industry leader with you.
 
Last edited:
Scott, I have an iPhone.

Where can I get these applications without voiding my warranty?
 
Warranty this, warranty that. You jailbreak your phone, and as long as you can restore the old iPhone OS, you're fine. To use that as an excuse for "oh noes, I can't do that", especially coming from this technical crowd, is just downright silly.

Enterprise app development is 300$ vs 100$ (per year) on the standard setup. Biggest thing is you bypass the app store process, but even on my standard dev account, I can push out my apps to 100 devices during testing, and Apple doesn't even see it at that time.

Personally I disagree with the censor tactics (I still wish that there was a proper Google Voice app), but I agree with the app store review process in general. Protecting users from malicious code, as well as ensuring that apps run properly keeps users from encountering buggy, crashing apps that they might just blame on the phone instead of the programmer. On Android, you tend to have a more tech savvy user, so I can understand the desire to open up the marketplace.
 
wbarnhill said:
Warranty this, warranty that. You jailbreak your phone, and as long as you can restore the old iPhone OS, you're fine. To use that as an excuse for "oh noes, I can't do that", especially coming from this technical crowd, is just downright silly.
Click to expand...
We can't ridicule people for being unwilling to take a lengthy and complex process, driven by an anonymous internet underground, one that could potentially leave their expensive device in an inoperable state and where they then have to continually worry about each OS upgrade. This is beyond "technical crowd", it's "activist supernerd" level stuff. Most of us aren't looking for a phone-maintenance hobby, we just want the damn thing to work.

And even if we are willing to take on that obligation, the fact that most people (quite sensibly, I think) are not is enough to mean that developers of apps cannot rely on a sizable audience for jailbroken apps, and so have small incentive to provide them. So this isn't "the big answer".
Enterprise app development is 300$ vs 100$ (per year)...
Click to expand...
And is limited to companies with 500+ employees and a DUNS number.

There are certainly ways to put apps on phones without going through app store and Apple's approval process, but these mechanisms require the establishment of relationships between the developer and the customer without drawing the attention of Apple, and simply aren't relevant to the question of a market for distributing apps to the public.
-harry
 
ScottM said:
hmmm I wonder how we got all these specialized apps got on out iTouches to demonstrate wireless applications that are not available at the Apple app store? I'll let our research people know that they do not exist and have never been distributed to anyone. :)
Click to expand...

You paid $200 extra for enterprise development. That still doesn't allow a solution to bypass the App Store for worldwide consumer distribution.

The simple truth is that it is Apple pool and they dictate the look and feel for their experience.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Disadvantage? You can't just get anything you want.

Advantage? You can trust the software and the device, and the things that do make it onto the device are good.
 
wsuffa said:
Well, not necessarily. Apple has banned Flash from the device(s) - making some sites unusable, and has gone so far as to rewrite their licensing agreement to screw developers that don't use their development tools: Link. So not only is content restricted, but also the tools used to create content are restricted.
Click to expand...

This isn't as evil as it sounds. Jon Gruber at Daring Fireball nailed it well enough that Steve Jobs even pointed to it when replying to someone's email on the subject. The basic gist is that if Apple allows people to develop through someone else's platform, then Apple can no longer move in a nimble manner with respect to the device's capabilities. For example, they come out with a new "thing" like multitasking and Adobe didn't update Flash quickly enough to allow it, suddenly you have a boatload of apps in the app store that don't support the new thing, and that's very bad.

Here are the Daring Fireball posts on the subject:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/04/14/keeping-the-platform-nimble
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/why_apple_changed_section_331
 
EdFred said:
In before Kent defends this.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to "defend" it. It is what it is. There are advantages and disadvantages to Apple being the sole source for apps. For most people, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. If you aren't one of those people, don't buy an iPhone - I don't care. I'll continue to use and enjoy mine, and I'll buy another one for my next phone too.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
This isn't as evil as it sounds. Jon Gruber at Daring Fireball nailed it well enough that Steve Jobs even pointed to it when replying to someone's email on the subject.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this was the paragraph that Jobs quoted:
So what Apple does not want is for some other company to establish a de facto standard software platform on top of Cocoa Touch. Not Adobe’s Flash. Not .NET (through MonoTouch). If that were to happen, there’s no lock-in advantage. If, say, a mobile Flash software platform — which encompassed multiple lower-level platforms, running on iPhone, Android, Windows Phone 7, and BlackBerry — were established, that app market would not give people a reason to prefer the iPhone.

​
Or maybe it was this one:
I’m not saying you have to like this. I’m not arguing that it’s anything other than ruthless competitiveness. I’m not arguing (up to this point) that it benefits anyone other than Apple itself.
​
This argument certainly syncs with my impression of the situation. All the rest about "we're saving the developers from themselves" stuff is just how you sell the argument to the public, when the true argument is "what Microsoft is to the desktop, we want to become for mobile, we've got the lead and we want to leverage our lead to squish the competition just like Microsoft did". This is exactly what they should be doing, of course, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Apple is doing this because it loves us.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
We can't ridicule people for being unwilling to take a lengthy and complex process, driven by an anonymous internet underground, one that could potentially leave their expensive device in an inoperable state and where they then have to continually worry about each OS upgrade. This is beyond "technical crowd", it's "activist supernerd" level stuff. Most of us aren't looking for a phone-maintenance hobby, we just want the damn thing to work.
Click to expand...

Thank you Harry. I was beginning to feel like a rube.

What Harry said, +1.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Thank you Harry. I was beginning to feel like a rube.

What Harry said, +1.
Click to expand...

So, would you buy AOL & their content/portal/software service instead of the internet driectly from cable/telco/ISP, given the choice?
 
wsuffa said:
So, would you buy AOL & their content/portal/software service instead of the internet driectly from cable/telco/ISP, given the choice?
Click to expand...

Many, many people did back when "internet access" was the domain of those who knew how to cobble together apps and possesed a secret decoder ring.
 
dmccormack said:
Many, many people did back when "internet access" was the domain of those who knew how to cobble together apps and possesed a secret decoder ring.
Click to expand...

Given the argument that "people just want it to work, and have (Apple) control things to prevent viruses and make sure they are good apps", then why wasn't AOL more successful in the long run? Why wouldn't people just flock back to AOL?

To Harry's point:
This argument certainly syncs with my impression of the situation. All the rest about "we're saving the developers from themselves" stuff is just how you sell the argument to the public, when the true argument is "what Microsoft is to the desktop, we want to become for mobile, we've got the lead and we want to leverage our lead to squish the competition just like Microsoft did". This is exactly what they should be doing, of course, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Apple is doing this because it loves us.
Click to expand...

Why is the current situation (making it appear that this is just about "safe and non-controversial apps) not "fraud", if the truth is that they're really trying to control the mobile screen?
 
mantakos said:
I wonder if this was the paragraph that Jobs quoted:
So what Apple does not want is for some other company to establish a de facto standard software platform on top of Cocoa Touch. Not Adobe’s Flash. Not .NET (through MonoTouch). If that were to happen, there’s no lock-in advantage. If, say, a mobile Flash software platform — which encompassed multiple lower-level platforms, running on iPhone, Android, Windows Phone 7, and BlackBerry — were established, that app market would not give people a reason to prefer the iPhone.

​
Or maybe it was this one:
I’m not saying you have to like this. I’m not arguing that it’s anything other than ruthless competitiveness. I’m not arguing (up to this point) that it benefits anyone other than Apple itself.
​
This argument certainly syncs with my impression of the situation. All the rest about "we're saving the developers from themselves" stuff is just how you sell the argument to the public, when the true argument is "what Microsoft is to the desktop, we want to become for mobile, we've got the lead and we want to leverage our lead to squish the competition just like Microsoft did". This is exactly what they should be doing, of course, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Apple is doing this because it loves us.
-harry
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it doesn't benefit Apple - I'm saying that as a very happy iPhone user, what benefits Apple also benefits me. If I had to wait to upgrade to OS 4.0 because half my apps were built on Flash and it wasn't updated in time, I would be pi$$ed.

Also, apps that are built on these abstraction layers for cross-platform use pretty much universally suck. By definition, they cannot possibly conform to the different human interface standards of the various platforms they're on. This is why Windows software that's ported to Mac, and vice versa, without being redesigned, sucks. I don't want to use a Windows program on the Mac, I want a Mac program that follows the Apple Human Interface Guidelines. Restricting things to Cocoa Touch (iPhone OS SDK) doesn't guarantee that a developer will get it right (and one need look no further than the Opera Mini browser on the iPhone to verify that), but apps that aren't developed directly for the platform they're on are basically guaranteed to suck.
 
wsuffa said:
Given the argument that "people just want it to work, and have (Apple) control things to prevent viruses and make sure they are good apps", then why wasn't AOL more successful in the long run? Why wouldn't people just flock back to AOL?
Click to expand...

AOL refused to adopt industry-standard browsers until it was too late. Also, once the ease-of-access was equivalent, the market differentiator was gone.

Remember all the "Free" CDS AOL dumped everywhere?

The attraction was for folks who only had to provide name, address, CC number and go.

Prodigy tried the same schtick, so did CompuServ (IIRC).

I moved to AOL after running up hundreds in Long Distance charges in 90-91. The closest access provider was a guy running a service out of Philly (FishNet, IIRC). There was no access in Lancaster PA except the local AOL number. I needed access for FTP, so I caved.
 
Last edited:
blah blah blah...Apple is awesome...blah blah blah...I like multi-colored-striated-kool-aid...blah blah blah, all hail the mighty fruit....
 
EdFred said:
blah blah blah...Apple is awesome...blah blah blah...I like multi-colored-striated-kool-aid...blah blah blah, all hail the mighty fruit....
Click to expand...

But can you log PIC time for playing X-Plane on a fruit while eating fruit?
 
When's the anti-trust lawsuit scheduled?

Seriously - Microsoft got sued for telling their distributors they couldn't put non approved software (specifically, browsers) on their desktops at the point of sale. End users were free to do so.

But APPLE - Apple's not even letting END USERS use non approved software. It's a MONOPOLY!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top