Related Articles

- Ambrosia runs software bundles for 70% savings

- Screen casting application ScreenFlow 2.0 now available

- Camtasia released for Mac

- ScreenFlow 2 announced, to add YouTube publishing

- Retrospect 8.1 restores PPC support, improves performance

- Apple releases Logic Pro 9 with Main Mainstage 2 and Soundtrack Pro 3

- Quicken for Mac road map gets extended to 2010

- Apple posts Safari 4.0.2 security fix

- Safari 4 tops 11 million downloads in three days

- Snowtape listens, records, edits, and exports Internet radio programming

By now, we've all heard the news that Apple refused to sell (PCWorld) Podcaster on the AppStore on the grounds that it duplicates functionality already in iTunes.

This has led to a firestorm of protest from the technorati:

Dave Winer—I wouldn't invest in or develop an iPhone app because Apple could decide not to approve it, and if they don't approve it you can't sell it. You can't even give it away. You don't find out if you've been approved until the last step, after you've fully invested, so you could lose, totally, if Apple says no. [Continue reading]

John Gruber—[B]latantly anti-competitive exclusion of apps that compete with Apple’s own? There is no trade-off here. No one benefits from such a policy, not even Apple. If this is truly Apple’s policy, it’s a disaster for the platform.

Harry McCracken—The company should also publish a detailed list of policies relating to App Store acceptance, so both developers and users know what’s kosher. It should have some sort of mechanism for developers to gain tentative approval for an application’s function, so they don’t waste time writing something that Apple would never accept.

And, yup, these guys are all right—Apple should have a clear set of policies, enforce them with an even hand (ie hire an ombudsman) and offer developers that fall afoul of the rules a method of appeal.

However, it should be noted, and this position likely won't endear me to anyone, if the developer of Podcaster deserves fair(er) treatment from Apple, then so do the people who created Pull My Finger and I Am Rich. High brow, low brow and everything in between deserves to be treated the same...

What's your take?

Adobe Lightroom 2 starts at $94.98. NOW AVAILABLE!

Reader Comments

If I were a developer maybe I would share their concerns, but as a user, I'm not sure that I care. I love the app store, if this is Apple's walled garden, it seems pretty good to me. Posted by Guest Poster #1 on 09/14/08 5:02 AM Do not mind that which comes from Guest Poster # 1. What #1 did successfully convey however, was that he does not understand why users exist. Es tu Apple? Wake up. /me stares at apple, inc. Posted by calmlb on 09/14/08 12:46 PM Isn't so difficult .... so developp for apple store ! Post linked on LINK - Feeds from the Geek Side Be approved Posted by Olivier on 09/14/08 12:51 PM This is typical Apple. Same old sh#t, different device. ...and you're suprised ? Posted by Guest Poster #4 on 09/14/08 1:02 PM Competition can help breed surprising new optima. Forbiding the "duplication of functionality" is, in my opinion, a surprisingly out of character move for Apple -- pre-emptively defensive, cowardly...the sort of shennanigans we might have expected from Microsoft in the late 1990s. I Call Chicken Posted by Cheeseburger Brown on 09/14/08 1:09 PM I had been toying around with an idea for an innovative AppStore application, but as an independent and dirt poor student developer, I'm not willing to take a risk anymore. I'll rather concentrate on my classes.. Posted by Guest Poster #6 on 09/14/08 1:21 PM If Microsoft said you couldn't install Firefox because they already had IE, or you can't install quicktime because they already have Windows Media Player, do you think that would be OK? Why is it okay for Apple to do that on the iPhone? If Microsoft did this Posted by Guest Poster #7 on 09/14/08 1:31 PM LINK Would people be OK if windows did this? IS this another IE vs. NEtscape? Another take: Posted by Scraggs on 09/14/08 1:43 PM The result is that the most innovative apps end up on the "black app market" of jailbroken iPhones. I have a jailbroken phone and have found Intelliscreen to be THE single most useful app available anywhere - it enhances the functionality of the phone tremendously. Of course, it violates Apple's app restrictions left and right, so they can't sell it in the app store. Also, Cycorder is a new app for jailbroken phones that records amazing uncompressed high-quality video on your iPhone. Another incredibly useful app you'll never see in the app store. I hope Podcaster releases their app for jailbroken phones - the more frequent this becomes, the more likely Apple will be to address the issues with their platform. Posted by Guest Poster #9 on 09/14/08 1:58 PM My guess is that the real problem Apple has with Podcaster is that it allows podcasts to be downloaded from sources other than the iTunes Music Store. Since iTunes is free, and podcasts are generally free, I don't think this is a competition issue, but a security issue. Users that feel completely comfortable downloading a podcast from the iTunes Music Store may feel just as (unjustifiably) confident downloading a malware infected file from 'Bob's Bait and Switch' blog. Poster #2 uses absurdism to make Apple's case, pointing out the proper order of precedence of users (first) and developers (second) in Apple's App Store model. Posted by Michael Teuber on 09/14/08 2:24 PM Personally I would rather them not allow "Applications" like PCworlds podcaster, because they are right, if you want the PCworld podcast, you can easily get it through normal means on the phone and could do it before the app store even came, all the PCWorld Podcaster program is a very small app designed to be an advertisement for PCWorld, and I say this as an active iphone developer. Should they pick and choose apps? I dont know, I would probably prefer not, but it does keep away a lot of the spam. Posted by Guest Poster #11 on 09/14/08 2:35 PM The difference is though is that Podcaster allows for additional functionality to subscribe to Podcasts outside of the defualt iTunes method. In the normal method, you have to connect to iTunes and then have iTunes sync your Podcast. With Podcaster, you are able to subscribe and pull it over the air. Comes in handy I guess if you are traveling a lot and get tired of having to pull out your laptop just to get the latest Podcasts for your next train/plain trip. Posted by Guest Poster #12 on 09/14/08 2:56 PM So Apple won't permit duplicate functionality from their own apps, but they'll allow 15 tip calculators? This is getting really shady. Overall, I was initially impressed with the App Store, but it's really lost its appeal. What the...? Posted by Mike on 09/14/08 2:59 PM I agree, Apple has the right not to sell an application but once they refuse to sell an app, they should allow the developer to sell it on another place. They cannot forbid one to sell his/her own stuff. That's immoral and illegal. I agree Posted by Guest Poster #14 on 09/14/08 6:27 PM So why does apple have 30000000000000 diffrent flashlight apps? whats wrong with having 2 apps that do hte "Same" thing? i love how apple continues their 1 sentance responces. OOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKK Posted by Guest Poster #15 on 09/14/08 8:44 PM So why does apple have 30000000000000 diffrent flashlight apps? whats wrong with having 2 apps that do hte "Same" thing? i love how apple continues their 1 sentance responces. OOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKKKKK Posted by Guest Poster #15 on 09/14/08 8:45 PM "Some developers demand Apple try to communicate better, lest they assume the worst of the platform vendor. While that sounds plenty reasonable at face value, given the curatorial demands on the fledgling state of the App Store platform and Apple's overall reliance on product-plan secrecy, we shouldn't realistically expect Apple to 'open up' anytime soon," as I explain in: Resolved: Apple is right to curate the App Store LINK Resolved: Apple is right to curate the App Store Posted by Kontra on 09/15/08 1:37 AM Over the years, Apple has regularly duplicated the work of third party developers and integrated it into the OS of the day, or their own applications. I guess that's different. Only Apple can duplicate functionality? Posted by Kevin B on 09/15/08 9:16 AM I hear a lot of whining about nothing, get over it! Whining about nothing, get over it! Posted by Guest Poster #19 on 09/15/08 9:56 AM There is no real reason to block the Podcaster app. Perhaps the hidden reason is that it uses a very good name "Podcaster" and Apple wants to use it in the future?? I believe that the employee that reviewed it is mistaken and Apple WILL reverse this. If not, it would be REALLY BAD NEWS. It's BAD NEWS Posted by Richard Dib on 09/15/08 12:12 PM Just cause Apple's blocked sale doesn't mean Cupertino could use the name Podcaster, which I assume someone owns... Posted by Guest Poster #21 on 09/15/08 12:26 PM I believe apple wants end users to use iTunes as much as they can. This will increase their sales, ad revenue, and profit all together. If users start using alternative software to meet their needs, then Apple loses money. I agree with all of the above. Apple is following the Microsoft steps all over again. I hope this issue is resolved soon. Either they post detailed, concrete guidelines, or they play fair with all these developers. If it wasn't for them, there would be no AppStore. Posted by kode_poet on 09/15/08 10:36 PM Another brutal story. Posted by Guest Poster #23 on 07/20/09 4:18 PM

Name Subject Comments Reload Image