Apple's stance on acceptance/rejection of these apps is getting more disgusting by the week. There are many ways to discuss this rationally, and many have been used already, here and elswere. But the first, straight from the gut, reaction is just that: disgusting. I know it is their platform, store and will and right... it's still disgusting.
People seem to be forgetting Apple is a business. Not a charity.
I think Apples biggest mistake was to launch the app store in the first place. I'm not interested in pretending my phone is a light saber, or using it as a flashlight.
For me, it sort of "dumbs down" the phone.
There are some apps that look well written, like super monkey balls etc, but most of them are just idiotic. Wastes of time, and money.
Apple is there to make money, and give users what they want. Not developers. If there's an app in the store that does something similar to an app Apple does, but a bit better, guess which one I want as a user? The Apple one. I want to know Apple will support it, be behind it, make sure it works for everyone etc. The other app could be a 1 man band who isn't that bothered.
I don't think Apple should have opened the app store, they should have just exposed all the hardware to javascript, as they did with the multitouch, orientation changes etc.
The only thing the app store has going for it is a willingness from users to pay money for novelty apps, but I think that will soon wear off.
In this particular case I can't see why anyone would want the app anyway. What does it offer above the standard mail app? Do Apple really need the extra hassle of providing support - "My mail doesn't work Apple!!! Oh um by the way I'm using some weird app I installed"
A business -- or a charity, military platoon, gang, masonic lodge, baseball team, or any other name we have for a group of people -- is not a robot. It is still a group of people.
Take some activity we might consider disgusting -- like chopping down a productive fruit tree, or shooting a milk-producing cow, shitting all over the people who give you 30 percent of their sales and help make an economic engine that feeds you, etc -- it is not disgusting if a robot does it.
If a tree-harvesting robot cut down productive fruit trees instead of the pine lumber, we'd say, "Hey, broken robot there -- fix it." But if a group of PEOPLE did that, we'd call them stupid and disgusting, and be fearful of what they were doing to the economy. If they formed an LLC and did it, they would be stupid and disgusting. If they formed a cult and selected a guru and did it, they would be stupid and disgusting.
"Apple" is just a name for a bunch of stupid and disgusting people. They could dissolve the corporation, and they would still be a few tens of thousands weirdos, with a creepy turtle neck wearing "design guru", and probably be trying to sell you overpriced crap that you could not modify, based on a subtle implication of elitism if you joined by buying.
I think the only reasonable phone to consider at this point is the OpenMoko. Unlike Android, it's here now. People are doing stuff like http://www.neopwn.com/ with it.
Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, there are simply no cellular providers that meet basic standards of reasonable behaviour, such that I would sign up with them. They all seem to be run by people like axod, and probably think it's OK to have sex with children as long you form an S corp hire yourself to rape them, to insulate your soul from it like a kind of ethical condom.
It has to do with the characteristic of the activity being "disgusting" as opposed to being "not in shareholder's interests," "not in customers' interests," or even "not in society's interests."
Both corporate behaviours have incited this kind of deeply emotional response. So it's interesting to ask someone if they have the same emotional response to each corporate behaviour.
It would be very interesting to me if someone says they find patent trolling to be businesses making money according to the rules of the game as they are written but that same person thinks of Apple's behaviour as "disgusting."
I am not suggesting anybody here has that response, just that I see that the question is interesting.
If neither of these behaviours are 'disgusting,' what is? IE if you don't find these disgusting, then you probably think that no business behaviour qualifies for this title.
In that case, that comment is out of place. Why say 'why is this disgusting?' What you mean is 'There's no such thing as disgusting in business.
No, there isn't. Business is amroal for the simple reason that corporations are not people.
However, there is such a thing as disgusting when people make business decisions. The fact that someone owns a business or works for a business does not relive them of personal moral responsibility.
A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring shoe manufacturing to copuntries with child labour is the right choice. A business is perfectly correct to decide that offshoring chemical manufacturing to countries with lax safety standards is the right choice.
The people working for those businesses, on the other hand, are not off the hook. They cannot invoke the Nuremburg defence, for can they assert that since the business is devoid of responsibility, and they work for the business, their decisions while on the job are devoid of responsibility.
Thus, speaking to another post here, I have no ethical problem with a firm that exists to commit patent extortion. However, I find the actions of its founders and employees disgusting.
The decision to buy a computer is mainly based on the size of the application-base. The early-adopters are anticipating rapid application-base growth. To grow the application base, one needs developers. As Steve Balmer said:
A significant portion of my purchase decision was that OmniFocus was releasing a portable version of their program.
The trouble with browser-based iPhone apps -- around here, anyway -- is that you can't use them on the subway. The GMail client on my old blackberry was like that and it was totally worthless during most of the time I was mobile.
I do think that web apps with the HTML 5 database ( http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#sql ) and clever caching would cover most use-cases. It does still leave email-outbox style functionality out of apps, but a simple message-passing service in the API would solve that.
Honestly, I just wish they were more consistent. I don't care that they reject apps they don't like on their own service for their own device. I do care that they let some through that are really unpolished. If I made a really stellar app and put lots of time and effort into it, I would hate for it to drown in a sea of inferior half-assed apps.
The App Store is for business. If I want to do something more exploratory or academic I do it in an open system.
It really doesn't matter whether these stories are true or not. The fact that they could conceivably be true is indicative of a major problem. After years of building software around Microsoft's tedious business plans, we developers are excited b/c the "good guy" is on the cusp of winning the next big war. But Apple is blowing it badly. Developers flocked to them like refugees b/c they were allowed to use the tools they wanted and their users had a platform that worked. Now Apple is playing home court advantage much more heavy handedly than Microsoft ever dreamed. The iPhone is years ahead of the competition. Steve does not need to behave like Vladamir Putin to win. Balmer had it right about one thing even if he never stayed true to it: "Developers, developers, developers!!!"
Reminds me of the Fight Club quote:
"We cook your meals. We haul your trash. We connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us."
I'm going to have to disagree with you. What was the number Steve gave last week? 100,000,000 downloads?
Apps are faster, they feel better, they can take advantage of the tilt properties and of multitouch. Did you not see the new ads? The new focus is all about gaming. You can't do games on the web with the same level of quality.
You can access multitouch, and some tilt stuff from javascript.
I guess it depends on connectivity in your area of the world.
As a user, I'd rather keep applications sandboxed in a nice browser with nothing downloaded.
I'm in New Jersey, and there's very little Wi-Fi. That's the other thing, actually: I speak from an iPod touch perspective, where you can't use a cellular network. That's something else to keep in mind.
Again, if this is something that bothers you, please understand the solution is to NOT BUY AN IPHONE, and not "whine online and continue to use your iphone".
RMS once agreed that OSS tools were inferior, but he only used OSS tools because by doing so (and contributing code and +1 userbase) he was working towards a future where the OSS achieved parity or became better. Same for all these other arguments. "But only Apple makes iPhones" is true, but ignores the greater market impact.
Besides, I fear that with the death of Palm and the increasing distaste towards WinMo (and the continuing stillbirth of Android) that the lesson carriers are learning is that closed is better.
Eh? Not buying an iPhone is certainly a solution, but it's not the only one.
If I walked into my favorite restaurant and said, "I love this place, but I wish you had slightly fresher salads," would you say, "Shut up and take a walk-- there are plenty of restaurants down the street."?
Consumer feedback is important. You're probably right that the most powerful thing a consumer could do is very loudly announce that they weren't going to buy for a specific reason. But it's still plenty compelling for a business to hear, "I'll grudgingly use your app/tool, but I'm continually frustrated by X".
Watch Apple-- I'd wager they respond to the "whining".
Actually, I think as company's get bigger, they don't hear the "I am frustrated by X", they see "ohhh we made HOW MUCH this year?"
I'm sure that Apple is peopled with nice guys and all, but seriously developers are a drop in the bucket (and thus easy to ignore). Either they stand up for themselves or they are going to keep getting abused. All the talk of how developing for Apple is sharecropping is moot because people keep developing.
Also, the "still pretty compelling for a business to hear"? If users said that to me I'd love it, because it means I got them. They're paying money for something that they actually disagree with. That says something about hitting the right pain points and such.
I'm not an iPhone app developer, but there are quite a few banned apps I'd love to use. Notably, the one mentioned in this article-- managing multiple email accounts on an iPhone is a pain in the ass.
1. How about those that bought an iPhone anywhere between when the AppStore was announced and when this crap started?* Do they get to "whine"?
2. Even if 1. is not the case, why not "whine"? Some might even end up calling it userbase reaction, feedback. Not getting into something is not always the answer to having some issues with that something.
Also, equating negative opinions about something about which you have a positive one with "whining" ain't cool.
I'm sure the 10 or so lost iPhone sales from iPhone app developers will really hit Apple where it hurts ;)
But I completely agree. This whining is getting really boring. It's their decision, and rightly so. If you don't like it, don't write for their platform. Write for android or a webapp or something.
In my opinion this case is much alarming then the previous one (the podcast application) because here seems like that the guys in charge to check if the applications are ok or not are not competent enough, or better, they don't really have a clue if they claim the missing 'edit account' is an application problem (it can be an usability feature). Very sad.
