Oh Apple. Is it that you can't see the things you're doing, or that you simply don't care how they look? If you'll recall, few months ago Jobs and co. kicked up quite a dust storm over a seemingly innocuous application called Podcaster, which allowed you to receive over-the-air updates of new podcasts when they were released. The company
rejected the app based on the grounds that it "duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes," a claim that seemed unreasonable at the time, and should now feel downright criminal. According to a German blog which has posted pictures of the latest beta build of firmware 2.2, Apple has included functionality which
allows you to download podcasts over-the-air. The new addition works with both video and audio, and over 3G / EDGE and WiFi, though the size of podcasts is limited to 10MB when using the cell network. Now we don't pretend to assume that Apple
just got this idea after seeing Podcaster in action -- and it's clear that Apple is killing projects which are similar to its own -- but it's still hard to stomach the concept of the company outright refusing an application with nearly the exact same functionality, only to turn around and add it to their installed software. This kind of
veiled violence against developers only serves to chip away at the support Apple has engendered in its community, and drive those hands and eyes to other platforms. C'mon Steve -- we know you can do better than this.
[Via
Mac Rumors]
posted November 6th 2008 12:34PM
Did it ever occur to people that maybe Apple had been working on this podcast OTA functionality long before Podcaster was submitted for approval? Hence their rejection?
That's right.
I think a few people here (probably disgruntled voters) just like to bash on Apple- Must be a republican thing.
I don't know... perhaps Josh himself put it in his post?
"Now we don't pretend to assume that Apple just got this idea after seeing Podcaster in action"
If that is the case then podcaster was still first anyhow.
didn't apple invent the podcast?
@ Paul: A Republican thing? That's completely $ucktarded and bass akward.
If anything, Apple's absolute control/arbitrary banning is completely identical to the "ship 'em to Gitmo and ask questions later" mentality of the past 8 years.
It doesn't matter that Apple was also developing similar functionality... in fact, that makes it worse. Apple better be careful, or they are going to have some problems with the DOJ. This is definitely problematic behavior that looks like blatant antitrust violations.
Apple is going to spend $1.1 Billion this year on R&D. I think they might have a few projects in the works... Probably a bunch of projects that people will eventually "invent" before Apple's version comes to market- it doesn't matter though.
In a case like this either you have a patent or dated paperwork.
haha- that's a bit far stretched. $1.1 billion in R&D?? You don't think they had this cooking before the dev rolled up with his version?
My only problem with Apple is that they didn't allow him to sell his app next to apple's version. they should be confident in their programming.
The whole issue is that it doesn't matter if Apple thought of it first or Podcaster. You cannot prevent someone who's got a product from entering the market just because you want your product out there first. That is illegal and immoral Corporate Practice. Plain and simple. Everything else is just an excuse!
Even Engadget's finally waking up to the fact that Apple's evil. Apple can't keep the wool over the consumers' eyes forever!
Clear something up for me, bub. Is Apple evil because they continue to improve the iPhone and iPod software, or are they evil for letting a developer know as soon as possible that his app is superfluous and irrelevant, or are they evil for preventing their customers from wasting money on an application that is about to become obsolete? Which is it?
but it's a 3rd party app so podcaster is worthless no matter what. the iphone would force me to run that app all day long in order to download the latest podcast at anytime. at least with an apple made iphone app i know i'll be getting a quality app that runs in the background.
Apple and ATT - a totalitarian match made in heaven.
Someone should inform Apple of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Podcaster = Alexander Bell
Apple = Elisha Gray
Who got to the apple store first?
Did you ever think that maybe - just maybe - they already had this functionality in the works (It does take time to develop and test new functionality you know), and rejected the application knowing that this functionality was coming soon anyways.
They probably did this to protect the developer, so they didn't feel that Apple was taking away their market by including this functionality for free with the iPhone.
Now, for once, I actually understand WHY Apple rejected the application in the first place.
The sad part is that developers have no way of knowing what applications will be rejected.
Suffice it to say that some common sense should prevail when developing new applications... developers should ask themselves if there is a possibility that Apple would be developing similar functionality and giving it away for free.
Did you ever think that maybe - just maybe - you weren't the first person to have this idea?
Give other people the same respect that you would wish to have and read the existing comments before you post. It saves the rest of us time as well.
It's very hard to believe that Apple was thinking about protecting consumers from buying this application that actually performed a functions, and yet did not immediately reject an application like 'I am rich' which performed no function.
The fact is we (me included since I bought an iPhone for my wife) are being brainwashed into believing that this type of control over the marketplace is good for us. The reality is, it is anti-consumer. Apple created this wonderful device with a revolutionary interface, and for that I commend them. What Apple is doing with the App store should be condemned by every iPhone owner, let the market decide what we want and don't want.
is it just me, or does this whole progress (or regress) of Apple remind me of Animal Farm?
Everyone knows Apple is a control freak company. This allows Apple to control the user experience (some argue this is good). However, I prefer to have more choices and run the risk of less than amazing experience.
What bugs me though is the cap on over the air downloading. Last I checked, the iPhone came with unlimited internet usage. AT&T has an awful network and iPhone users should be scared by the fact that Apple can disable anything it wants on your phone.
I am much happier with Sprint with real unlimited internet usage and my Windows Mobile phone which lets me install any program that supports the platform (no MS approval needed).
I was tempted to jump ship for the iPhone but I don't think my freedom is worth a slick marketing campaign and pretty menus.
then don't buy the iphone.
Next time they can let the developer in, then release it as an update. That would go much better.
Good riddens to developers that abandon the iPhone for other platforms. For the foreseeable future iPhone apps sales will outperform sales on all other apps stores combined.
Sigh..
"the size of podcasts is limited to 10MB when using the cell network"
Here I was hoping to actually get service equivalent to the $30/mo that I pay. Sounds like it's time to make an app that splits larger podcasts into 10MB chunks for playback...
10MB? Really AT&T?
What they need to do is be like blizzard the way they treat wow. They don't hinder any "add-on" functionality to the game. But over the years, any really popular add-on was incoportated in some form into the official user interface. This helps blizzard, it helps the developers, it helps the end user.
Similarly, if apple was to allow the devs to release anything, and if it happens to be the same thing, then the dev will work harder to improve features, and apple can in turn find popular features (read:video capture, mms, background notification, copy pastes etc.) and incorporate those in future firmwares.
The only difference is people might have to pay for the apps from the devs
but aside from that, "basic" users would still benefit from the ideas of great apps and devs, and devs in turn get recognition and a chance to differentiate and improve the UI.
Its 2008 not 1984 and Steve Jobs is Big Brother. Are you ready to think different
What's with the BS 10MB limit over Edge/3G. That's pretty much every video podcast I watch.
They force me to pay for Unlimited data, then limit the data I can download.
So looks like I'll still be Jailbreaking my phone and installing VoIPover3G to trick it into thinking it's on WiFi.
So close, yet so far.
Ok, people are probably over this by now, but my two cents anyway:
It doesn't matter if Apple was working on it or not. The real issue is Apple not allowing competing products into their market. If you want to kill all products that will compete with yours, fine. But don't call it an "open" market. And any developer thinking about writing for this platform is going to think twice about bothering.
There are THOUSANDS of applications that compete against Microsoft's own WM programs. They leave it up to the consumer to determine if their version is better than the third-party apps. While I wouldn't call WM completely open, they are way more open in this aspect than Apple. Almost any function of WM can be replaced by a third-party app if the user likes.
Of course, Android truly is open and will not suffer from any of these types of issues.
If Apple refuses an app that adds additional functionality to one of their own products this is a bad thing for both the consumer and the developer. However, if Apple adds the functionality to their product - adding the benefit of increased standards of being a core application. This seems like a good thing to me. (not being a developer)
Does anyone really, truly believe that Apple stole the idea to download podcasts over 3G? Seriously? Why does Engadget seem so entitled to making a damning assessment or Apple's practices just because someone added an incredibly simple feature in an application out before Apple did?
Obviously Apple didn't steal the idea. However, it seems like they didn't want a competing application. In this case the Apple application will probably be better mainly because it will probably be able to run in the background ( a major limitation of any app found in the app store is that it can't run in the background). Nevertheless, the point is Apple is the gatekeeper, and the power they wield and consistently demonstrate over the iPhone/iPod platform is anti-consumer.
In the meanwhile, it would be nice if Apple would fix the current App Store interface on the iPhone/iPod Touch so we can access apps beyond the first 100 listed when browsing by category again. Falling back on keyword searches and iTunes isn't adequate for locating apps like it is for Music, where you likely know the name of the band or song title you want.
I smell a Sherman Act Section 2 antitrust case by the government coming against Microsoft (ughh, sorry, excuse, me, I meant Apple) in the near future.
I wonder how many people called the iPhone lame before the 1st version came out.
I wonder how many people wanted itunes song buy/download to iphone before they realized the 2G network would be a big waste of time. (They so cried for 3G.)
I wonder how useful the app store would be if I could download apps on the 2G network, wait I cant cuz its not worth the wait.
Iphone is a world phone that needs to cater to 2G and 3G, so the app podcasts have to work on 2G as well, but then again a video podcast takes so long to download, I dont think I have just 1 podcast to worry about to download which lasts about 30 mins avg..
So how can apple make the end user experience worth it if not for making them frustrate over how long it takes on the 3G network. I just read a guy whos waiting on a 2.1 unlock and he is still in 1.1.4.
So my dad downloads a podcast thats almost 150MB which he is unaware of or doesnt really care to know, it takes him forever due to constant calls. No wifi around and in the end, he hates it.
P.S. Its all about how good apples software user experience is "coupled with the hardware capability and the network of AT&T and other networks of the world"
App store has a cap as well.
I wonder how fast an iPhone with wimax would be! hummm iPhone Wimax? HD Video download with 100MB cap? Id hate that one ROFL. Lets get staretd shall we.
The slowness of 2G networks is blown way out of proportion. Yeah, it's a lot slower than 3G, but it's not like we're talking about 56k dialup speeds here. It's like a DSL connection if you live on the outskirts of their service, not blazing fast but perfectly reasonable for browsing and downloading. Most full complex websites load in 20 seconds or less, and you can download a 20mb podcast in the background in 4 or 5 minutes.
To me, that sounds totally reasonable considering the huge amount of coverage that Edge data networks have.
Yet another reason for me not to develop for the iPhone. Thanks Apple!
Why's this have to keep sucking? They are literally grabbing the people the most need and stabbing them in the back. I wish I'd sold my Apple stock months ago. If they keep this up, they're going in to the ground. They can't expect be a huge company in the cell phone market and get away with this bull*.
I can now finally get my daily dose of Olivia Munn without having to wait an hour for my iPhone to backup and sync!
are all the unemployed people hammering out comments on blogs now?
I bet apple look at the app and though good but not good enough. (But if apple did it you could play it in music and they could get some $) But they should of let them let out the app.