I don't understand the big furor over the I Am Rich application. If some rich idiot wants to pay $1000 for a useless program that displays a red gem, more power to them. I don't think it should have been pulled from the store just for being expensive and not deemed useful.
I have to agree with lilo on this one. There was nothing wrong with the application itself, or the pricing, as far as the App Store guidelines are concerned, but the negative PR was damaging the platform. Pulling the "NetShare" application is a far more important issue than the removal of "I Am Rich" given that it was reasonably priced, genuinely useful and, again, did not appear to be in contradiction to the App Store guidelines for acceptability.
Usually I'd say the same thing, but allowing things like this sets a precedent. If one guy can have his I'm rich bullshit application, then why can't I? Hell I'll make it $2,000 and call it the I Am Richer Than Rich application. Stuff like that just leads to a bloated store full of useless crap.
"Usually I'd say the same thing, but allowing things like this sets a precedent. If one guy can have his I'm rich bullshit application, then why can't I? Hell I'll make it $2,000 and call it the I Am Richer Than Rich application. Stuff like that just leads to a bloated store full of useless crap."
So a guy came up with a clever way to make money off of this app, and you fully support the idea of denying him that ability because you are more worried about "a bloated store full of useless crap"?
What is this?!?
Is it the common way of thinking amoung Apple fans that limiting freedom is a good thing? Is having one central agency for software distribution and having that source censor out apps that just aren't considered "chic" enough by some small group of people really a good thing?
There's no way "I Am Rich" would have *ever* made it to one of the featured pages in the store. This app should have sat quietly in some sub-page query and died a silent death, but because Apple exerts control about what goes into the store, leaving it in the store makes Apple complicit in its creation, just like all the other worthless crap in the store does.
So when it was found, it highlighted what seemed to be huge flaw in the "Apple as quality control" explanation for its closed-platform model. If iTunes was just one of many ways to install, and you could freely download .ipas directly from anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Apple then gets to reject because rejecting isn't a complete lock-out, and jokesters get to make lame apps without cluttering up the store for others.
(And I'd point to Nokia Download! as a prime example of how it should work...if only they exerted some editorial control in there -- the Weather Channel app they had recently was a horrible, utterly laughable J2ME app that looked like a dumb terminal with an ad-banner over it.)
"I'm looking to grab a new phone using a prepaid service. What's the best prepaid phone service in terms of overall price, phone selection and other bells / whistles. Thanks!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I don't understand the big furor over the I Am Rich application. If some rich idiot wants to pay $1000 for a useless program that displays a red gem, more power to them. I don't think it should have been pulled from the store just for being expensive and not deemed useful.
What's the point of being rich if you don't have a red gem that says you are?
They had to remove this application because it kind of exposes all this iPhone hype. Bad publicity is starting to hurt Apple
A useless program that made them $300 from nothing everytime someone bought it.
I have to agree with lilo on this one. There was nothing wrong with the application itself, or the pricing, as far as the App Store guidelines are concerned, but the negative PR was damaging the platform. Pulling the "NetShare" application is a far more important issue than the removal of "I Am Rich" given that it was reasonably priced, genuinely useful and, again, did not appear to be in contradiction to the App Store guidelines for acceptability.
Usually I'd say the same thing, but allowing things like this sets a precedent. If one guy can have his I'm rich bullshit application, then why can't I? Hell I'll make it $2,000 and call it the I Am Richer Than Rich application. Stuff like that just leads to a bloated store full of useless crap.
@Reader
*Looks at App store*
Bit late for that, eh?
"Usually I'd say the same thing, but allowing things like this sets a precedent. If one guy can have his I'm rich bullshit application, then why can't I? Hell I'll make it $2,000 and call it the I Am Richer Than Rich application. Stuff like that just leads to a bloated store full of useless crap."
So a guy came up with a clever way to make money off of this app, and you fully support the idea of denying him that ability because you are more worried about "a bloated store full of useless crap"?
What is this?!?
Is it the common way of thinking amoung Apple fans that limiting freedom is a good thing? Is having one central agency for software distribution and having that source censor out apps that just aren't considered "chic" enough by some small group of people really a good thing?
There's no way "I Am Rich" would have *ever* made it to one of the featured pages in the store. This app should have sat quietly in some sub-page query and died a silent death, but because Apple exerts control about what goes into the store, leaving it in the store makes Apple complicit in its creation, just like all the other worthless crap in the store does.
So when it was found, it highlighted what seemed to be huge flaw in the "Apple as quality control" explanation for its closed-platform model. If iTunes was just one of many ways to install, and you could freely download .ipas directly from anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Apple then gets to reject because rejecting isn't a complete lock-out, and jokesters get to make lame apps without cluttering up the store for others.
(And I'd point to Nokia Download! as a prime example of how it should work...if only they exerted some editorial control in there -- the Weather Channel app they had recently was a horrible, utterly laughable J2ME app that looked like a dumb terminal with an ad-banner over it.)