We’ve been screaming and whining about the iPhone App Store for nigh on a year now and we seem to have avoiding talking about one of the most obvious sources for information about the Store: Steve himself.
Harry “Long Tail” McCracken remembers what Steve said way back in the old days about the App Store.
Jobs said that Apple wouldn’t distribute porn or malicious apps or privacy-invading apps, and said that Apple’s interests and those of third-party developers were the same. The slide also mentioned “Bandwidth hogs,” which apparently meant stuff like SlingPlayer, and “Unforseen,” which I assumed at the time referred to other applications that put iPhone owners at risk in one way or another. What he didn’t do is say that Apple would reject software that competed with Apple or AT&T offerings.
This “unforeseen” section is what really bugs everyone. Google Voice, for example, could feasibly recreate some basic iPhone functionality and also act as a resource hog.
However, unforeseen could also mean what Gruber says:
And, to play devil’s advocate for a moment, I’m not sure the decision is entirely unreasonable. Don’t think about it in terms of Apple’s relationship with its carrier partners, but instead think about it in terms of Apple’s competition with Google. Google Voice is a mobile phone service provided by the maker of one of the biggest competitors to the iPhone OS. What if Google Voice were instead Microsoft Voice? And what if Windows Mobile were as modern and competitive as Android? Would you be as surprised then that Apple is discouraging iPhone owners from using the service? Just saying.
Unforeseen, in this case, could mean “competitive.”
So the App Store process is truly capricious but – and this is important – it’s not as capricious as we think. There is a method to the madness. Is it a good method? Is the madness helpful? No and no. But you can’t blame Apple for protecting their walled garden.
The iPhone is not a PC. It does not act as a standalone device with resources enough to run any application. It is a device that, in a sense, Apple is renting to you. They’ll never do this, but imagine if Apple suddenly encrypted your phone because you jailbroke it?
In short, we can whine all we want but Apple still runs the show.
Apple is a business, and Google is a competitor. Apple’s decision here makes complete sense. It should have been assumed from the beginning that Apple would take steps to prevent their competitors from profiting at their expense. I’m surprised this is even news.
+1
How can anyone be so naïve NOT to assume this.
My little sister (6 y.o.) told me about that 2 years ago.
Was she 6 at the time, or is she 6 now, and 4 when she explained it?
While I agree that Apple’s decision to deny these apps is a good business move…
I can’t help but compare this to the Anti-Trust by Netscape and AOL against Microsoft.
Isn’t this the same comparison? It’s their operating system, yet they are stifling innovation and competition by squeezing competitors out of the business.
I have no doubt there will be lawsuits against this in the very near future and we’ll see some changes.
Or, Google could go tit-for-tat and ban all mentions of iPhones and AT&T from their service, since it competes with Andriod. It’s the same concept.
Troy, that’s a good point. I think the main difference here is that Apple isn’t in a position to control the market – there are a myriad of other choices out there for smart phones. They’re not stifling competition, as Google Voice is still available (presumably) on other smart phones/PDAs/computers.
@thebonafortuna,
That’s a good point as well…
However, at the time of the lawsuit, consumers did have other options, like the MAC OS.
The question if I remember right was the amount of marketshare Windows had compared to other providers. I believe the argument was that Microsoft had such an advantage over it’s competitors is numbers that it presented an unfair advantage over it’s competitors.
Right now, Apple has a substantial lead in marketshare over other smartphones, but I don’t know if it’s the extent Windows had in the early 2000’s.
So, I guess the question really comes down to marketshare.
“While I agree that Apple’s decision to deny these apps is a good business move…”
Do not think so. Good decision is to approve all innovative applications not to ban them otherwise eventually you are going to start losing your customers to your competitors (Android).
I might be way off on this, but when Microsoft had its first ruling come down judging it to be a monopolistic company acting in a non-competitive way, Apple was basically in afterthought. This was in the late 90s, right?
I don’t have the stats on hand, but I believe the iPhone still accounts for a relatively small portion of the smart phone market. They’ve sold in the millions to date, but there are still way more BlackBerry’s out there. And I think Nokia is still doing pretty well in Europe, although with Symbian I’ll never understand how. So I don’t *think* they’ve reached that critical threshold for market share, at least not yet. But yes, I think in the end it really does come down to market share.
Nice to have a civil discourse on these boards for a change.
@thebonafortuna
I think you might be right… There are alternatives to Apple at this point that I don’t think it’s a good comparison.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Like I said earlier, it would be interesting if Google layed on some pressue on Apple / AT&T to move this through.
It is good to see civil conversations on TechCrunch / Crunch Gear instead of people just complaining and insulting. Good to meet you! :)
The size of the marketshare of a competitor is irrelevant to whether or not a company is engaging in anticompetitive practices. The issue with Microsoft, and why this is an entirely different situation, was that they were pressuring third-party hardware companies to give preferential treatment to Microsoft’s software. If Microsoft had been installing their software on Microsoft-built hardware, it would have been an entirely different situation.
The key is that it involved manipulation of *external* parties to enforce their dominance and prohibit competition in those external business spaces. This is not applicable to a situation where Apple refuses to allow a certain piece of software to run on Apple-written software that operates Apple-built hardware.
If Google is such a competitor to Apple, why are all the default settings and apps that come with the iPhone all use Google?
Google is a competitor in terms of their OS, and their mobile OS, and now they are taking on phone services. They were not competing in any of these aspects when they 1st partnered with Apple. Maps, YouTube & Search were clearly areas that Apple had no intention of creating their own apps for.
The first 1st iPhone came out on June 29th, 2007.
Google purchased GrandCentral (now Google Voice) on July 2, 2007.
So technically, you’re right, but given the extreme proximity of these two events, there’s a strong chance that Apple was fully aware that Google was purchasing or interested in purchasing GrandCentral.
Steve Jobs is now just “Steve” to you?
He’s not your buddy, moron. He’s not your dad’s divorced chiropractor pal either.
He’s the subject of the story. Keep it professional and appropriate.
Not so friendly, ok Woodward?
Well maybe he was, hence the new liver?
Thou Shall Not Take The Lord’s Name in Vain
Booooo hear me roar
thanks for the lesson in transparency, man who does not write his name in the comments section of websites!
Sorry, i seem to forget he is a saint…
St. Steve it will be form now on..
So then, it would make complete sense for Google to strip Apple from its search results?
you know that would be retarded…
That would be funny and generate some great headlines -
Google Makes Apple Crumble
if apple had a search engine and google removed all references to it, it would be just like what apple is doing
They could…but that might result in people moving to an alternate search engine. Or typing “apple.com” into their browser.
Steve Jobs is one of the most creative entrepeneurs of history.
“I’m surprised this is even news”
LOL. Code words for:
“I wish this news had never been made public”
Too late, fella
I’m about the furthest thing from an Apple fanboy that could ever possibly exist. I have never in my life purchased an Apple product. I have no skin the game, so to speak, for Apple, and therefore have no concern over what news they choose to make public.
I’m a fan of capitalism, and believe companies have a right to sell their product as they see fit. I believe they have a right to profit. And I believe that if people have a problem with what they’re offering, they have a right not to buy it. And if enough people have that problem, the company will either fail or change their policy.
In this case, Apple has done nothing wrong. If you have a problem with their business practice, don’t purchase their products. But if you did, don’t cry foul when a company driven to make a profit acts in its – and its shareholders – best interests.
Have to correct myself – I purchased an iPod Nano for my girlfriend a few years back. Nothing for myself at this point.
When Microsoft does what you are condoning, blocking competition in the world’s most popular desktop operating system, it is ‘antitrust’ and they are found guilty and duly punished.
When Apple does it, in the world’s most popular handheld operating system, it is “strategic marketing” which “makes sense”.
Clearly we are in a gray area right now, where the courts have not been pushed to hold mobile OS vendors to the same standard as their desktop brethren.
But, it is only a matter of time. We may not all agree on how well various Federal ‘antitrust’ laws fit into the ideals of free market capitalism, but nevertheless they are law right now and they must be enforced.
So, without further adieu:
Let the lawsuits fly.
@randy
I don’t think we’re in a gray area yet. Apple has always reserved the right to deny apps for the iPhone. There are many, many other choices out there for smart phones – choices which still *outsell* the iPhone.
Now if the iPhone had taken over, and Blackberry, Palm, Nokia, and whoever else had all become a trivial percentage of total smart phone ownership – and Apple then began stifling competition – then I think we reach that gray area. But not today.
Personally, I think the iPhone is cool. I made an informed decision not to buy one because I don’t particularly like Apple, and the thought of being locked into a two year contract with AT&T while also being *required* during that time to pay what I see as exorbitant data usage fees was enough for me to say ‘forget it’. There are other smart phones out there that cost less and offer more competitive data plans – even at AT&T. There is still choice, in fair abundance. So long as that’s the case, I don’t think this is an issue.
Alright, señor, I agree the tiny handheld touchscreen computer market is still new, and it’s probably just too early for any accusations of ‘illegal’ anti-competitive behavior.
But if we “aren’t in a gray area yet”, then why are my feelings hurt? I guess apparently you and I fundamentally disagree on what is a “smart phone”, and therefore what products actually compete head-to-head with the iPhone. My feelings are hurt because, contrary to what you believe, there truly aren’t any real “choices out there for smart phones” right now, and it’s been like that for TOO LONG. And now, dammit, Apple is taking license.
As competitors struggle eternally to adequately respond, the dominator now awakens, and we the market are now at its mercy.
Nobody doubts their right to do so. However, because the iphone has found itself to be unique amongst other phones in that it has a decent ecosystem of developers around it, people assumed apple would not take advantage of its dominance and would follow the general “unwritten” open platform rules.
Nobody else has created an open platform, invited developers to essentially work for them for free, taken a cut of their work and then treat them so cruelly. Apple is taking advantage of the work of developers just as much as developers take advantage of apple’s distribution system.
Facebook does it, twitter does it, MySpace does it, Android does it, nokia does it, but they do not preemptively prohibit competition, quite the opposite.
Now the problem is that legally, nobody can sue Apple for that, because devs have given up their rights in the developer agreement. However, if this goes on for long, there will be a backlash from the developer ecosystem, and from users themselves. Apple essentially acts as if it owns their customers, not merely the devices they sell. Customers have the right to use the applications that developers offer on their hardware product – that’s it, clear and simple. I am pretty sure if apple goes on with these tactics, they will face problems in their EU market, because the EC routinely interferes with practices that are considered hostile to consumers. That’s my 0.02 €
How can anybody possibly want to buy an overpriced product whose manufacturer dictates what you are alowed to do with. Pathetic. This is so Orwellian.
Yes it is shiny and it turns pictures from lanscape to portrait when you move it – but it is pure evil!
Actually, it’s more like they won’t sell you an add-on.
The Google Voice apps that have been sold are still on people’s phones, it’s just that Apple isn’t going to use their iTunes store to sell anymore copies. While it’s true that any other method to get an application onto an iPhone is complicated and messy, it still does exist.
Agreed. I caved to the iPhone 3GS after the n97 turned out to be a dud and nothing else interesting was on the horizon. But after slightly over a month of using it, I’m sick and tired of the stupid restrictions.
I just sold it on ebay and made $250 MORE than what I paid for it. Incredible that anyone would pay that much for this crap.
well, you probably paid the subsidized price for your iphone. and then sold it to someone who wasn’t eligible for a subsidized upgrade. so, he was probably able to purchase your hardly used iphone for much less than he would have to otherwise pay. sounds pretty smart to me.
Sure, and you think Apple is going to let you get off the contract that you have signed to pay monthly service plans for 2 years?
Curious minds want to know what you went with, since many of us realize the iPhone’s not perfect, but more accurately “the least worst” of the bunch.
’cause even with their restrictions its still the best smart phone available in the US, with more apps then ALL other mobile app stores combined. I believe this is more of an AT&T issue then an Apple issue. What we really need is to stop exclusive deals so that people can buy an unlocked handset. If that was possible Apple wouldn’t have to listen to every word AT&T shouted at them.
and just because they never said they wouldn’t do something doesn’t mean they can’t do it. But eff them nonetheless for their weird biz practices.
If the iPhone isn’t a computer then AT&T needs to be aware of this since they think it is. Sounds like AT&T and Apple need to get together to decide whether or not this a phone or computer. The way it stands each one can use either language as their benefit and circumvent certain aspects of contracts.
It’s definitely their sandbox but we can all agree upon better ways to play in it. App Store rejections are part of the issue and there are quite a few others. Here are our ideas on how to improve the App Store: http://bit.ly/ImproveAppStore
With the entire world screaming about open standards, apparently it is OK for Apple to shun the approach.
Gates ain’t got nothin’ on Jobs for lock-in.
The world isn’t screaming about open standards. Tech people are, and if they’re really concerned about open standards, they wouldn’t have bought an iPhone in the first place.
Why are people expecting Apple to give serious consideration to a demographic that is trying to get away with paying them as little as possible? Guess what, Apple stops caring what you think about them as soon as you aren’t willing to give them money.
Good point. It is theirs to do with what they choose.
Right but, in a way, the tech people are fighting for the general public. Without them, software and computing in general may be much more expensive than they are today.
The concrete and tangible benefits of the tech people’s “fight” are not always obvious and we often take them for granted.
I’d like to think they are, but in my exposure to tech-oriented people (and I consider myself one), the fight is usually primarily self-serving. Not only do they cry for more technology, more information, more open-ness, and more innovation, they’re also the least likely to be willing to give anything to achieve it, especially money.
Consider the people who pirated music before the iTunes store came out. They said “Apple should remove DRM from their music,” and Apple replied “You aren’t going to buy music even if we do, it will cost money to remove it, and it will just make you even less likely to buy anything.” It wasn’t until there was enough competition for the non-technical marketplace that they changed their mind. It’s ridiculous to expect any company to shoot themselves in the foot by providing a huge platform and market for their own competition.
This is just unfair business practice and not the new smart way to deal with competition. It just bad karma for Apple, that’s all! At the end, Android fanboys will have Google Voice and this will give Android a big (if not huge) competitive advantage vs iPhone. Good for Google, I think, as Google Voice is truly a game changer. So, at the end, Apple loses more than it gains by blocking a competitor in such a primitive way.
Yes, this is exactly it. A lot of us are suddenly finding an Android phone VERY appealing, though to be honest, a lot of us already did–This just takes it up a notch.
The HTC Hero was really close to being the Android version of the iPhone hardware, but I think there’s a lot of people out there waiting for something similar to the Hero, but with a cutting edge processor (like in the 3GS/Pre) instead of the parts-bin processor they decided to use.
This is all bullshit no matter how you look at it. Microsoft has been regulated like crazy the last few years, but Apple has been left to do what ever they please. Someone please explain to me what would happen if Microsoft all of the sudden started blocking iTunes from working on Windows products? … Fucking congress would go ape shit and pass a law, is what would happen. I am so sick of the double standard that has become. In my opinion, if you make an OS, by law it should either have to be total open (anyone can develop for it), or totally closed (only the creator can developer for it). You can’t pick and choose in a free market.
Beg your pardon, but that’s *exactly* what you can do in a “free” market.
I agree. But their is a double standard as it stands right now. Either stop regulating MS, or start regulating everyone. I would rather the first option. Personally I have no issues with what Apple is doing. My grief comes with the fact that MS is getting a beating by the EU and others lately while Apple keeps trucking along performing the same practices that MS is getting in trouble for doing.
You have to separate what’s happening in the EU to what happens here. The EU has been the organization that has been so tough on Microsoft’s monopolistic strategies – and Apple holds very little market share in Europe so obviously they can’t go after apple for being a monopoly.
I agree with you there. It is absolutely a double standard, and that is wrong.
Now, playing devil’s advocate, I could say that Microsoft owns far more of the market than Apple, and is therefore in a position to exert monopolistic control over that market…but if I’m not playing that role, I have to honestly step back and say the world is a different place than it was when MS first got caught for their non-competitive practices, and with valid competition in the market – coming from every side – they shouldn’t be regulated anymore. At least to the extent they are. But I agree with your point.
Yes, I agree. But sheep who buy this crap and let Apple make their huge margin off them deserve pity.
After all selling snake oil is as old as America itself and is actually older. Apple is an excellent purveyor of these kinds of goods these days.
You buy it because it makes you feel good about yourself – a respectable business model. Not easy to pull.
uh…. look, as much as I dislike apple’s recent decisions and business practices, they are hardly selling “snake oil” or “crap”. get a grip.
Woaw, I love the snake oil and feeling good about yourself explanation. You are SO RIGHT.
1. The iphone is snake oil to make people feel good about themselves. I’ve had a Motorola A920 that does most everything the iphone does, plus more, same size touchscreen, on 3G UMTS, with video-conferencing, no app restrictions, copy/paste, mms, battery exchange, SD card memory expansion, got it much cheaper here (free with 6-month $40 per month unlimited voice/sms plan) in Denmark since back in 2003.
2. Apple TV is snake oil to make people feel good about themselves. Since 2003, I have a Kiss-Technology networked DivX player DP-500 that does at least as much if not much more than the Apple TV, with absolutely no need to synchronize content from a computer or mac.
3. Macintosh is snake oil to make people feel good about themselves. I can buy a competing ultra portable with the same size screen and keyboard, and with many more features, for less than half the price of the apple air. All OSX application features work just as well in Linux and Windows.
4. ipod is snake oil to make people feel good about themselves. Mp3 players existed 5 years before the ipod was introduced. Other mp3 player brands cost half as much as ipods and have more features and more codecs.
good point. nobody should EVER feel good about his or herself.
The Iphone—and all of its crap applications–are great fun for kids with time on their hands
and absolutely useless for grownups with real jobs, responsibilities and families.
No one I know over the age of 30 owns one. Let me qualify that: no one who is over 30 and has a career of any kind.
Blackberry, Nokia–professional phones that serve a purpose.
Iphones are for goofs.
I, along with several of our developers, editors, managers, directors, and our company’s CTO, all have iPhones and use them extensively. The only people I know who use Blackberries are forced to use them by their companies, usually due to syncing issues.
Wow, talk about clueless!
I know several people who have both, a Blackberry to actualy do work on and an iPhone to play with
Wow. Im not much of an apple fan but that comment was just stupid as hell.
When the day comes that Apple owns 90% of the ENTIRE CELL PHONE MARKET and then tells the carriers that if they want to sell their hardware, they have to agree to whatever terms they want, then AND ONLY THEN will you have a valid comparison.
That’s exactly what Microsoft did with Windows in the 90’s. They didn’t just have a monopoly over the entire market they abused it against all the resellers. Apple has neither of those!
So, if you buy a computer, you can install anything you want on it. But as soon as you add a chip to that computer with which you can make phone calls on a phone network, then you can no longer install what you want, the rules change. Riiiight. Very logical indeed… NOT.
That has been my point all along too. How is it that these phone companies get away with this, but the PC makers do not?
Because computers/laptops are not subsidized like phones (yet). This is the issue! If cell phones were not subsidized these then carriers would not be able to restrict handset manufacturers.
AOL once subsidized a computer. You could get a free PC if you subscribed for AOL at one point.
“But as soon as you add a chip to that computer with which you can make phone calls on a phone network”
I don’t think it’s fair to call it just a phone line at all. It’s a fully mobile networked device, which can transfer any kind of digital data from virtually any location 24/7. In the context of the world itself expanding rapidly online globally and locally. I guess the potential business models scenarios for a non-mobile networked device are expanded than from a wifi-only connnected device.
Apple can do what they want, and you can’t do shit about it but complain. LOL!
The iPhone IS a computer, no matter how much AT&T and Apple may not want it to be so. It’s crippled by Apple, true. But its specs in every category beat out computers that were on the market 10, 15 years ago. Unlock the iPhone and let it use its full capacity, Apple!
Isn’t restricting competitive apps somewhat falls under monopoly? The same way how the feds are looking into AT&T’s exclusive deal with Apple. All can probably be linked with anti trust law!
its called business.
All these services and apps built ontop of twitter will realise that in the not so distant future.
Yes man! Finall.ly (pun intended) somebody said it!!!
Come on people. What makes the iStore any different than any other store. Every store whether it is brick and mortar or internet has the choice of what they want to sell. Just because I want a new engine performance part doesn’t mean Ford has to sell it.
I can buy and add the high performance part to the Ford’s engine, as that’s my right, but Ford has the right to say that doing so will void my warranty. Same thing you can jail break the iPhone and add what you want but Apple doesn’t have to honor the warranty!
Just my 2 cents worth
This is flawed analogy.
It is not about replacing the iPhone’s CPU or whatever hardware component. It’s about the choice of running an application.
A better analogy would be Ford preventing you from mounting tires and rims of the brand of your choice on their cars or forcing you to use Ford-branded engine oil.
It may be legal but not consumer-friendly.
This comment by Marc is right on the money. Why should Apple be held to different rules? Quit your crying people, if you don’t like it move on to something different. It is still a free Country and Market.
And Microsoft should revert back to its old business ways in this “free Country and Market”. And along the way, they should perhaps also ban iTunes and Safari from running on Windows.
Does that argument apply to Microsoft too? Or does the rule change when it’s Apple?
The hypocrisy of the chattering tech classes is stunning!
You are right, Apple can sell whatever they want in their store. However, if Google was to publish it and you were to install it on your own, it would be illegal for Apple to void your warranty or brick your device. Although, you might have a problem with At&t if contract language specifically prohibits using services like Google Voice. Doubt it though.
In order for the manufacturer to lawfully void your warranty, they must be able to prove the modification was the direct cause of the product failure.
See the MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT OF 1975.
http://autos.aol.com/article/warranty-and-aftermarket-parts
Don’t give up! Keep posting bad PR and apple will eventually listen and relent!
u
Anyone notice the discrepancy here? If Jobs wants to keep GV off iPhone, he’s protecting his company from a competitor. But if AT&T wanted it off, it’s unacceptable. So often we forget that the carriers are the ones who physically coordinated, got city/state clearance, and built the infrastructure (and was regulated constantly in doing so.) If Google/Apple wants to provide free calls, why don’t they build a network or buy Sprint. Why have we determined that companies like Verizon/AT&T must let everyone use their pipes, but Apple and Google are free to pick & choose who gets on the App Store/Search results page?
Pipe is not free. They all charge for bandwith.
Go ahead and try to get even a 100MBPS channel for free. Hahaha!
You’re right.
Google Voice does not provide free calls. You still need a voice, data and SMS plan with AT&T to use it on the iphone.
For now. What happens when Google decides what to do with that broad swatch of the FCC spectrum that opened up? They could well have the resources and technology in time to make cell phones obsolete. Why would Apple – or AT&T – provide them the opportunity *today* to develop their product and allow it to entrench itself when they can turn around *tomorrow* and say “thanks, don’t need you anymore”.
*swath, not “swatch”
Uhhhh… maybe because the customer PAYS AT&T for the bandwidth and the CUSTOMER, not AT&T, should be able to decide how to use that bandwidth?
@Brian
These companies operate in a grown up world, where companies are obligated to make a profit. Providing opportunities to your competitor(s) to grow and prosper – at your expense, or at your potential future expense – is a fundamental dereliction of responsibility.
Google has been buying spectrum for several years now. The day when they offer “free” voice & data services may not be far off.
Well, if you want to do something besides whining (and you have a problem with the iPhone/iTunes store model) I’d suggest doing something Apple will actually listen to, buy a competing product.
The Apple walled garden only exists if you agree to play in it, no one is forcing you…
Screaming and whining? What the hell kind of draconian political officer are you? Are you ex-KGB or something?
da, comrade
Apple seems to get more Evil the more successful they become.
But what’s even more disappointing is why no one seems to be able to compete with them.
Well I tell ya one thing, the way they treat this new tablet/personal computing type of device had better be WAY THE HELL different than they do the iphone I can tells ya that much!
I would like to present TechCrunch’s opinion of IT in the following dramatization.
Developer: “Hey, I just invented this great device that does X for a monthly fee.”
TC: “You should let other people install a program that lets them do X for free.”
Developer: “But I spent a year and $50,000 dollars developing it, and if I do that I won’t make any money.”
TC: “Don’t be anti-competitive, maaan. The free market will provide, maaan. You should embrace open standards like me, a person who does not actually produce anything that would apply to.”
Developer: “Well, OK.”
Developer: “Well, I opened up my device, it’s been flooded with terrible free alternatives to X, and I made no money.”
Half of TC: “Welp you should’ve made it better in the first place, so you deserve it.”
Other half of TC: “Hey I bought your device and I want it to do Y, fix it or I won’t buy your next device.”
Developer: “Fuck all of you.”
And now, I’d like to present the Apple cultist’s opinion of IT in the following dramatization.
Developer: “Hey, I just invented this great application that does X for little or nothing.”
Apple Cultist: “You should charge for that, and we’ll only allow it to run on our phone when it matches our arbitrary and capricious standards.”
Developer: “But I spent a year and $50,000 dollars developing it, and if you reject the app I won’t make any money.”
AC: “Don’t be uncool, maaan. The Apple faithful will provide, maaan. You should embrace closed proprietary standards that add no value but restrict choices like me, a person who knows nothing about technology and thus doesn’t care.”
Developer: “Well, OK.”
Developer: “Well, I developed my application, and Apple has rejected it because it offers users choices and I made no money.”
Half of ACs: “Well you should’ve made it better in the first place, so you deserve it.”
Other half of ACs: “Hey you made this available for the Android handsets, Palm Pre and Samsung Instinct BUT NOT FOR APPLE! YOU SUCK!!!!!”
Developer: “Fuck all of you.”
It’s really interesting to watch how hard some people are trying to justify what is really an egregious decision from the standpoint of users. Not surprised to see silence from MG on the issue.
Best post of the thread.
Agree 100%. MG is coming up with a “It’s not apple’s fault” article like. Apple fan boys r already brainwashed.
Nostradamus!!! He just posted exactly that.
I personally would like to see the iPhone open for development and apps available outside of the App Store. The one thing I don’t understand is all of the people who failed to realize Apple has a history of dealing with their hardware and software in this closed manner. If not, Apple would have become PC long ago.
i’m surprised that anyone would expect anything different from apple…they have walled their garden off from the world ever since the first MAC.
The Kool-aid doesn’t taste so good now that Apple has pee’d in it.
Apple is as Apple does.
Everyone needs to grow up and get a life. That’s as in: grow up.
A new technology for twitter: http://www.irfanahmed.org/2009/07/new-twitter-application-for-hashtags.html something for TechCrunch to report?
Do hat tip me if you do write about it?
seems that Biggs is Jason Kincaid’s biggest enemy! war between TC writers! round 2?…
“The iPhone is not a PC. It does not act as a standalone device with resources enough to run any application. It is a device that, in a sense, Apple is renting to you.”
That’s the most retarded statement I’ve read in a long while.
Monumental fail with this attempt of an excuse for Apple.
Yeah, no joke. Apple is “renting” the phone you paid money for up front and through your cellular contract to you. The contempt for customers is just amazing.
I have just ordered Comcast internet and will be getting rid of my AT&T cell plan next month. I really should thank apple for making this decision easy for me.
I had been on the fence about getting an iPhone or one of the next generation Android phones for a few months.
Android is looking like the only sensible choice.
So.. I’m a little confused here. There’s all sorts of talk about Google Voice competing with the iPhone.
Not sure I understand the comparison.
Google Voice for phone calls uses at&t minutes, which don’t cost Apple. Its simply call forwarding. This is not VOIP folks.
Google Voice SMS doesnt cost Apple either. There are PLENTY of other free SMS apps on the App Store already, why not Google Voice?
Voicemail transcriptions surely don’t duplicate functionality of either Apple or at&t. As far as alternative visual voicemail, again there are already apps on the App Store for that. (ie. YouMail).
Can someone please enlighten me how this is due to Google trying to compete with Apple, or even at&t?
Precisely the point that most don’t understand, and likely because they haven’t used Google Voice.
A contract with AT&T for voice, data and sms is still required to use GV on the iphone!
“Precisely the point that most don’t understand, and likely because they haven’t used Google Voice.
A contract with AT&T for voice, data and sms is still required to use GV on the iphone!”
Well, no, actually … WiFi gets you access to GV without AT&T’s 3G network.
It’s Apple and AT&T trying to lock in their customers.
If a customer depends on Google for their primary phone number and text message routing, it’s harder for AT&T to hold them hostage come renewal time.
If Apple allows someone else to create a significant part of the phone and text experience, it’s more difficult for them to charge outrageous prices for hobbled cheap made-in-China hardware and candy-coated open-source software branded as “Mac OS X for iPhone” since people who get annoyed with the high prices and restrictions can go for another GV-enabled phone.
By extinguishing choices on their networks and platforms, AT&T and Apple can keep their customers in the dark about the competition while continuing to charge breathtaking premium prices for nothing more than hype.
“Imagine if Apple suddenly encrypted your phone because you jailbroke it?”
Then I would gladly shove my iphone up in their ass!
That google voice logic is shaky at best. Apple lost points in my book for that decision.
http://www.traderbots.com/stocks/Stock.aspx?symbol=aapl
How about SpoofApp? Apple had us in review for 192 days, just sitting there waiting for approval or denial, before they ultimately rejected us because they don’t see Caller ID spoofing as a legitimate app.
Why’d it take them 192 days to tell us that?
Because Apple is not a customer-focused organization, but a control-focused one. They’re ignoring you — a paying developer customer. They’re hurting iPhone owners too, by denying them choices and innovation.
The restrictions they’re imposing on their customers and developers remind me of the nonsense from the early Macintosh days… which is why Mac never developed a following as a serious business machine in 1984 and 1985 when the window was wide open to blow IBM’s doors off.
It’s going to end similarly for them in cell phones. Three years from now, people will be saying “remember the iPhone?”
“…And what if Windows Mobile were as modern and competitive as Android?…”!
r u joking?! u compare a sophisticated and standard platform for development and deployment, by a bundle of code created for fun!
what’s exactly ur meaning of the “modern”? anything that was built later!?! so plz wait i want to create a webpage in next year, and you can name it more modern than WindowsMobile and modern than andorid!…this line u wrote totally is nonsense in a level that you could use “Modem” instead of “Modern”!
Tell Google to build their own phone and app store.
The thing about Apple that just steams my buns is that they use business practices that not only hurt other companies (that’s not that bad) but also the customer. They don’t care that they are leaving customers out of an amazing app. I truly dislike apple.
Chris –
geekspotnow.blogspot.com
article ends with:
“It is a device that, in a sense, Apple is renting to you. They’ll never do this, but imagine if Apple suddenly encrypted your phone because you jailbroke it?
In short, we can whine all we want but Apple still runs the show.”
…and I thought it was my device, because I paid for it and I gave a lot of money and I don’t get them easily or in big quantities. But, apparently I’m wrong. I (the poor customer) that pay for the actual product and pay for the third-party apps and all these billion dollars corporate games that are played on my back it’s because it’s their show?
Since that’s the case then I guess I can curse them with tiny nuts, right?
Of course I’m not against the article or the writer of the article, but I’m against the mentality that many people have, which they are in the same situation like me, to try to excuse and understand these kind of laughable tactics between two (or more) super wealthy companies. I believe that all comments should be against AT&T and Apple that their only concern is how to get more money from us and not efforts to characterize these moves as good business tactics. We should not even accept the idea that it is their show when we are talking about OUR money.
Sorry, but telling us to suck it up and deal with it is the worst answer ever. Let me lay it out for you.
We don’t like Apple’s draconian management of their iPhone platform. Not as a consumer, where we’re forced to buy software for the phone from Apple, and not as a developer, where, if we make anything innovative, Apple will copy the functionailty and disable the software shortly thereafter. The phone is simply not amazing enough for us to put up with it. We won’t shut up about it just because Apple is the media’s darling. It’s a crock of **** and we all know it.
We don’t care about Apple’s competitors. It’s pretty common for your biggest competitors to be your biggest clients in another end of the market. Most large companies know how to deal with it; Apple’s the one holding a grudge here.
Looks like it’s time for me to go on a crusade and tell everyone how they’re being tools for using the iPhone.
decouple your phone
http://www.freepress.net/FreeMyPhone
tactics like these never have a positive lasting effect. people will look for products that let them do what they want.
I’m not fussed that Apple deny apps. What pisses me off is the way in which they do it. They’ve lost me as a developer for their platform as a result. Smartphones are rapidly becoming computers first and phones second – if they piss off enough of us developers they will lose the race, regardless of how good the basic system is. It’s that simple.