Doctorow on the iPad

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Personally I believe Apple has every legal right to put all apps on "double secret probation" and deny apps for reasons that can be most charitably described as rampant idiocy.

It's their store, they can do what they want.

Accepting that right does not mean I think it's an intelligent, rational, or even ethical way to do business. I think it's wrongheaded and messed up and just adds to the list of reasons why I've been using the term "Apple fascists" for about thirty years now.

Just as they have the choice to do what I consider stupid things, I have the choice not to buy in to them. There are multiple reasons there is an Android device in my pocket, and Apple is one of them.

Couldnt agree with you more on most of it, eg I wouldnt go so far as calling their actions Fascist, and they do seem to have helped their business(although irt could be argued theyd do even better if they chilled out a little) so not sure its not intelligent or rational.

And unlike some babies your not crying about it! and your smart enough to realise you have a choice.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by stustaff

If the dev had not used an action that apple claim to have a patent on then I doubt apple would have rejected it.

Apple didn't cite a patent. They rejected it because it did something useful which Apple are saying nobody but they can use on their device. Because, you know, can't have good apps now (hint: sarcasm). And again, even if they did, they could easily just licence it!

"Ruthlessly crushing good apps" over react much?

That's your confabulation, not mine.

I was under the impression that if you were claiming a patent you also had to actively protect that patent or you could end up losing it? thats what I meant by saying Apple 'had' to say know to it as if they approved it then they are saying yes others can use it?

From unlicensed use. You can licence it to people, especially iDevice devs who have already signed a dev agreement!


Lemurion - Exactly. I'm perfectly entitled to hammer them for it!

[stustaff]

erm seing as the dev didnt license it then I believe them using it would be classed as unlicensed.

or probably apple rejected it because they dont want someone to have a better app than them?

we dont really know and again its apples store, apples system, apples choice.

like I said I think it would be better more open! but it isnt so stories like these dont really tell anyone anything they dont know.

buy an apple device or dont.
dev for apple or dont.

it IS taht simple

[DawnFalcon]

No, it's not. It's in everyone's interest for companies to follow basic good practices, and to be good corporate citizens. Randomly screwing other companies over is not part of that.

Of course, there are always going to be some people supporting that sort of nonsense, the claims they make to contrary are rubbished by their clearly and explicitly stated support.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, it's not. It's in everyone's interest for companies to follow basic good practices, and to be good corporate citizens. Randomly screwing other companies over is not part of that.

It is in the real world. didnt anyone tell you the nice guy comes last
I could argue that they arent being random they are declining anything that THEY feel could harm their business! and thats up to them to do that!

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Of course, there are always going to be some people supporting that sort of nonsense, the claims they make to contrary are rubbished by their clearly and explicitly stated support.

I support their right to do that and everyone elses right to have nothing to do with them! or to be happy to have Apple products.

Choice is good! and if everyone was open and let anything into their store then where is my choice to have someone pre approve the apps that appear on my phone?
I like that Apple do that and would rather that they sometimes go too far in declining apps rather than not going far enough.

a few million others seem to agree to so it seems like Im not alone in being happy with my apple products AND the way they choose to operate.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Choice is good! and if everyone was open and let anything into their store then where is my choice to have someone pre approve the apps that appear on my phone?
I like that Apple do that and would rather that they sometimes go too far in declining apps rather than not going far enough.

Where is the harm in the Windows Phone approach of having an approval process for the on-device market and also the option to 'side load' apps from any other source? The Android approach is similar (though there is not much control over what gets into the marketplace on Android). Those customers who want Big Brother to decide what they should do with their phone can happily use the marketplace and those who want freedom can get apps that Big Brother doesn't approve of (e.g. email apps better than Apple's, apps with rude words in, anything that Big Brother feels morally or politically offensive, apps that allow the user to improve their phone with VOIP, etc.).

Apple's app control is not about you, it's about Apple retaining control over their products at the expense of the customer.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Choice is good! and if everyone was open and let anything into their store then where is my choice to have someone pre approve the apps that appear on my phone?

How does this preclude, in any way, following sensible good practice guidelines? That means providing (a for-pay, if necessary) pre-screening of apps. That means having clear and unambiguous guidelines for apps, not secret criteria you only find about when you fail them. That means having a period between changing criteria and rejecting apps for them. And so on.

Apple would maintain full control. They'd just have a far better working relationship with developers, and higher quality apps because of that.

So sorry you think this is bad.

And yes, it's up to them if they want to do otherwise - but it's a perfectly valid criticism that they don't, and saying otherwise is blind and bluntly silly. I'm sorry that you want lower quality apps, and to a large extent? You're getting them.

Android, because of the lack of this kind of gatekeeping is getting generally higher quality apps now. There is a distinctly smaller proportion of the "spammy" apps which plague the iStore are notably missing, or compiled down into single apps (when they're 20 or 100 on the iPhone, literally).

So sorry you hate that.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by stustaff

If the dev had not used an action that apple claim to have a patent on then I doubt apple would have rejected it.

i dont claim to know patent law but apple have applied for pinch to zoom and an article on wired.com states

""It seems that Apple could win patent claims where they are directed toward a touchscreen user device," says Chad Peterman, an expert on patent and antitrust litigation and an attorney at Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler. While a gesture like "the pinch" in and of itself is not patentable, if you connect that motion to a specific function on a popular device, it is possible to argue that other devices using the same technique are infringing, Peterman says."....

Where did you see that "apple have applied for pinch to zoom?" AFAIK there is no such application, and it's likely not patentable. The quote you site is some guy saying "it is possible to argue," which means very little.

Your argument about Apple's reasons for rejecting the app also makes no sense, since if Apple wanted to bolster whatever claim you think they have, they would have explicitly stated such reason and widely publicized it.

BTW, while Apple keeps claiming that the App Store is insignificant in terms of revenue, estimates are that it brings in a quarter of a billion in profits for Apple, which is significant.

Certainly significant enough to provide a better reason for keeping Flash out, than the gibberish about Adobe being lazy and Flash crashing "all the time."

[basschick]

you replaced an ebook reader with a one and a half pound unit? ouch!

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I'll be picking up my iPad today as a replacement for my Sony 505 eBook reader.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by basschick

you replaced an ebook reader with a one and a half pound unit? ouch!

Read and work out at the same time, we found another iPad function

[basschick]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Read and work out at the same time, we found another iPad function

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by basschick

you replaced an ebook reader with a one and a half pound unit? ouch!

It doesn't feel that heavy and I usually read my Kindle or real books either laying down with the weight on my chest or in chair with my elbows on my lap. So weight isn't much of an issue. Cannot hold the iPad one handed, but I seldom hold my Kindle or real books one handed either so moot point for me.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Where is the harm in the Windows Phone approach of having an approval process for the on-device market and also the option to 'side load' apps from any other source? The Android approach is similar (though there is not much control over what gets into the marketplace on Android). Those customers who want Big Brother to decide what they should do with their phone can happily use the marketplace and those who want freedom can get apps that Big Brother doesn't approve of (e.g. email apps better than Apple's, apps with rude words in, anything that Big Brother feels morally or politically offensive, apps that allow the user to improve their phone with VOIP, etc.).

Apple's app control is not about you, it's about Apple retaining control over their products at the expense of the customer.

the harm? let me demonstrate 'the harm' for you.

Many people thing windows is a shit operating system that crashes a lot! and yes it does crash but actually the majority of times its due to software not the OS.
If people side-load software that is buggy or beta style onto a device and then the device starts to crash 'some' people will still blame the device and it may then get a reputation for bring a crash prone buggy device! it wont just be tech savvy people that sideload but joe public who follow a guide on you tube.
Remember the VAST majority of users will not understand its due to a poorly written app, but instead blame the device or contact Apple.

Apple make the choice to completely avoid this! thats up to them! I really cant understand why anyone feels Apple should have to do anything else or can really even argue against this model which has made the iPhone THE best selling device out there.

btw my jailbroken iPhone now crashes and requires a soft reboot every time I update an app. I have no idea why and have tried to isolate what program is causing it but no joy yet.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Answered my own question. Looks like they do have a patent on the pinch to zoom interface and recently sued HTC over patent infringement from use of something similar in some apps or something.

Remember that a patent doesn't mean that other people can't use something; it simply means that they have to license it from the patent holder in order to do so.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

How does this preclude, in any way, following sensible good practice guidelines? That means providing (a for-pay, if necessary) pre-screening of apps. That means having clear and unambiguous guidelines for apps, not secret criteria you only find about when you fail them. That means having a period between changing criteria and rejecting apps for them. And so on.

Apple would maintain full control. They'd just have a far better working relationship with developers, and higher quality apps because of that.

So sorry you think this is bad.

where did i say that would be bad please?
I defended Apples right to run their business how they want, its so far been almost unbelievably succesful in increasing both product sales and income. so rather than me think I know better I accept that its nothing to do with me and if I dont like it then I'll vote with my wallet.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And yes, it's up to them if they want to do otherwise - but it's a perfectly valid criticism that they don't, and saying otherwise is blind and bluntly silly. I'm sorry that you want lower quality apps, and to a large extent? You're getting them.

Android, because of the lack of this kind of gatekeeping is getting generally higher quality apps now. There is a distinctly smaller proportion of the "spammy" apps which plague the iStore are notably missing, or compiled down into single apps (when they're 20 or 100 on the iPhone, literally).

So sorry you hate that.

Im not saying the criticism isnt valid,all opinions have some validity and I do think things done differently could improve things in terms of app approval, they could also make things worse.

When did I say I want lower quality apps please?
I personally dont see that happening at the moment My buddy at work has android phone the original one that is and he loves it but he is yet to either talk about or show me a single app that I cant get or is better than anything on iPhone(admittedly thats in my opinion) YOUR opinion is that apps on android are better, Im not sure how anyone could KNOW that to be honest and any claim is really a bit silly.

I dont hate something that is at best a figment of your imagination.

oh and there are less spammy apps becausethere are less apps percentage wise its insignificantly different. and that is because android appmarket is so small! money wise.
Sonist pointed out apple make around a quarter of a billion from apps and thats only 30%! so that means devs have made over 750 MILLION dollars!