5 ms·

I read it as saying that Steve personally explained a rejection. And as for letting the market decide (dons Asbestos): 1. The market does decide. There's Andro

I read it as saying that Steve personally explained a rejection. And as for letting the market decide (dons Asbestos): 1. The market does decide. There's Android, Palm, Blackberry, and Zune (rebranded as Windows for some reason) to provide options. Vote with your wallet. 2. I have worked in Retail. Retails stores choose their products very carefully. What you carry is part of your brand. Sure Apple is the store and not the app, but they're still a store closely associated with their brand-sensitive product and thus they behave like a company carefully managing their brand. Ok, have at it. But before you waste me with lectures about how Apple has some sort of moral obligation to lose money or why they're idiots for not doing the smart thing, please try to think of them as being an "opinionated" hardware manufacturer that is so opinionated they make their own OS.

martythemaniak 17y ago
Every piece of software is "opinionated" to some degree. *nix has its philosophy, OS x has its look and feel, webOS and Android work in fairly different ways etc. Apple, however, is the only one that stretches it's opinion from how software works over to what kind of content its customers can consume. Jobs and Apple seem to think that sine lots of people like their opinion on software, these people must also like their their taste in content. And please, don't give me the Safari comeback argument, we all know there's a world of difference between native apps and web sites. I've already voted with my wallet and development time, but the more people talk about this kind of bullshit from Apple, the more informed choices they'll be able to make.
- ynniv 17y ago
  You still don't understand branding. When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive. Only after years of establishment does the public differentiate the product from the content. I still hear people say that something is available "in Internet Explorer". It's a long journey to establishment, and during that period, it is Apple's duty to keep their brand legitimate.
  - wanderr 17y ago
    To me that seems like making the case that if there is offensive content broadcasted on tv, people will blame the television, not the broadcaster. That makes no sense.
    - jrp 17y ago
      will -> would have when it was new
      - wanderr 17y ago
        Well, did they?
  - jrockway 17y ago
    When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive. You're making a big leap here. You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? (Remember, Apple doesn't regulate web content, and web content can be launched via an icon on the home screen.) The reality here, I think, is that Apple just wants some time in the tech press. They hadn't really been doing anything interesting, and people were talking about Windows and Android instead of the iPhone. Now that's changed. Relevant video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE
    - ynniv 17y ago
      You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? I get that we're all technical people here, but you're looking at this wrong. Imagine this conversation: BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human. TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it? BOB: HorribleWebsite.com TOM: That's tough, have you talked with her about being careful on the net? Now Bob's daughter may have been using an iPhone, or an Android phone, or a computer, it doesn't matter. The Internet is unavoidable, and we have to deal with things that we don't like. Lets try another. BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human. TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it? BOB: She bought it on the AppStore. TOM: Apple lets them sell that sort of thing? I'm going to take my son's away and get him another phone. I don't need that in my life. Now, does either Bob or Tom know the different between an "Objective-C" application and an HTML5 offline bookmark? I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. They do know whether this offensive content can be avoided by abandoning the platform based on whether this is "web" content or not. But sure, show your crying kittens video. Apple doesn't know what they're doing, their success was probably just luck.
seldo 17y ago
You are right to say that the quality of the merchandise affects the brand of the store, and that's the problem with the App Store model: Apple has implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) taken responsibility for the quality and content of apps in the store. But the iPhone is not just a store, it's also a platform. Sometimes shitty software is the only choice you have. Sometimes you want to do something most people would consider offensive with your device. The lack of an (authorized) way for consumers to load apps onto their phone independently of the App Store is leading to continuous PR problems for Apple, alternately with consumers for hosting offensive apps or developers for rejecting inoffensive ones. Apple needs to turn the App Store into a premium distribution channel (most people will still find their apps via the store) but create an unregulated channel for installing apps. Otherwise people will slowly migrate to platforms that are less restrictive, like Android.
- ynniv 17y ago
  The lack of an (authorized) way for consumers to load apps onto their phone independently of the App Store is leading to continuous PR problems for Apple Step out of the echo chamber. The only people complaining are the tiny minority of customers who happen to be developers.
  - Zak 17y ago
    People who can't use their Google Voice service, make Skype calls on 3G[0] or tether their laptops to their iphones are complaining. Those are still a more technically sophisticated audience, but they're not developers. Long-term, what I think will end up being a bigger issue is the apps that aren't even written for the iPhone out of fear of rejection. Once Android captures a bit more of the market, I think we'll start seeing a lot of high-quality apps coming to Android first because developers know they're not going to be blocked. [0] Yes I know that has changed or is changing soon
    - ynniv 17y ago
      Long-term, what I think will end up being a bigger issue is the apps that aren't even written for the iPhone out of fear of rejection. That's a nice fairy tale. Anyone who wants to make money will make an iPhone app, because the other phones do not have marketplaces of the same magnitude. And there are very few people who have been rejected. Most rejections seem to be non-final for the sake of fixing trademark issues, inappropriate ratings, or serious bugs. The elephant in the Android room is that Google can't decide if they want an open platform, or their own phone. They started with the platform ("PlaysForSure") play, but soon decided to pursue their own vertical ("Zune"). The problems with the platform play are the lack of at least one strong competitor, and the bane of Java: "write once, test everywhere". The explosion of test environments make it difficult for small shops to ship a quality Android app. Plus the Android market is mostly people who (a) didn't want to leave Verizon, or (b) want a cheaper phone / plan, or (c) have control issues. The end result has been that the Android app market is a toy, and the AppStore is the winner taking all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and predictions. I have no intention of changing your mind. But know that your arguments are classic second place arguments: "people will change because they want this feature", "developers are afraid of failure". People do not change until they feel second rate (the complete iPhone experience is extraordinarily better than a less restricted app store). Developers are motivated by possible success, not possible failure. In short, the iPhone will lose when people start buying something else. Nothing that anyone says in a forum has any bearing on that at all. Apple is working harder than anyone else to win, and they are far ahead.
jacoblyles 17y ago
When a retail store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to another retail store. When the app store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to ??????
- GHFigs 17y ago
  ...another retail store.
- chaostheory 17y ago
  ... another app store. I believe there are (or will be) about five competing app stores.
- arantius 17y ago
  > When the app store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to ?????? ... one of the other mobile platforms. The OP listed four alternatives.

martythemaniak 17y ago

Every piece of software is "opinionated" to some degree. *nix has its philosophy, OS x has its look and feel, webOS and Android work in fairly different ways etc. Apple, however, is the only one that stretches it's opinion from how software works over to what kind of content its customers can consume. Jobs and Apple seem to think that sine lots of people like their opinion on software, these people must also like their their taste in content. And please, don't give me the Safari comeback argument, we all know there's a world of difference between native apps and web sites. I've already voted with my wallet and development time, but the more people talk about this kind of bullshit from Apple, the more informed choices they'll be able to make.

ynniv 17y ago
You still don't understand branding. When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive. Only after years of establishment does the public differentiate the product from the content. I still hear people say that something is available "in Internet Explorer". It's a long journey to establishment, and during that period, it is Apple's duty to keep their brand legitimate.
- wanderr 17y ago
  To me that seems like making the case that if there is offensive content broadcasted on tv, people will blame the television, not the broadcaster. That makes no sense.
  - jrp 17y ago
    will -> would have when it was new
    - wanderr 17y ago
      Well, did they?
- jrockway 17y ago
  When a product is new, people do not differentiate content and channel. When an offensive app is available on the AppStore, the iPhone is offensive. When there is an offensive web page which is viewable in Safari on the iPhone, the web page is offensive. You're making a big leap here. You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? (Remember, Apple doesn't regulate web content, and web content can be launched via an icon on the home screen.) The reality here, I think, is that Apple just wants some time in the tech press. They hadn't really been doing anything interesting, and people were talking about Windows and Android instead of the iPhone. Now that's changed. Relevant video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UMX-btHwYE
  - ynniv 17y ago
    You're saying that people can't tell the difference between a telephone and a store, but they can tell the difference between an application written in HTML and Javascript and an application written in Objective-C? I get that we're all technical people here, but you're looking at this wrong. Imagine this conversation: BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human. TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it? BOB: HorribleWebsite.com TOM: That's tough, have you talked with her about being careful on the net? Now Bob's daughter may have been using an iPhone, or an Android phone, or a computer, it doesn't matter. The Internet is unavoidable, and we have to deal with things that we don't like. Lets try another. BOB: I am really angry at this thing my kid was playing with. It portrays a class of people as less than human. TOM: That's horrible, where did she find it? BOB: She bought it on the AppStore. TOM: Apple lets them sell that sort of thing? I'm going to take my son's away and get him another phone. I don't need that in my life. Now, does either Bob or Tom know the different between an "Objective-C" application and an HTML5 offline bookmark? I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. They do know whether this offensive content can be avoided by abandoning the platform based on whether this is "web" content or not. But sure, show your crying kittens video. Apple doesn't know what they're doing, their success was probably just luck.

seldo 17y ago

You are right to say that the quality of the merchandise affects the brand of the store, and that's the problem with the App Store model: Apple has implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) taken responsibility for the quality and content of apps in the store. But the iPhone is not just a store, it's also a platform. Sometimes shitty software is the only choice you have. Sometimes you want to do something most people would consider offensive with your device. The lack of an (authorized) way for consumers to load apps onto their phone independently of the App Store is leading to continuous PR problems for Apple, alternately with consumers for hosting offensive apps or developers for rejecting inoffensive ones. Apple needs to turn the App Store into a premium distribution channel (most people will still find their apps via the store) but create an unregulated channel for installing apps. Otherwise people will slowly migrate to platforms that are less restrictive, like Android.

ynniv 17y ago
The lack of an (authorized) way for consumers to load apps onto their phone independently of the App Store is leading to continuous PR problems for Apple Step out of the echo chamber. The only people complaining are the tiny minority of customers who happen to be developers.
- Zak 17y ago
  People who can't use their Google Voice service, make Skype calls on 3G[0] or tether their laptops to their iphones are complaining. Those are still a more technically sophisticated audience, but they're not developers. Long-term, what I think will end up being a bigger issue is the apps that aren't even written for the iPhone out of fear of rejection. Once Android captures a bit more of the market, I think we'll start seeing a lot of high-quality apps coming to Android first because developers know they're not going to be blocked. [0] Yes I know that has changed or is changing soon
  - ynniv 17y ago
    Long-term, what I think will end up being a bigger issue is the apps that aren't even written for the iPhone out of fear of rejection. That's a nice fairy tale. Anyone who wants to make money will make an iPhone app, because the other phones do not have marketplaces of the same magnitude. And there are very few people who have been rejected. Most rejections seem to be non-final for the sake of fixing trademark issues, inappropriate ratings, or serious bugs. The elephant in the Android room is that Google can't decide if they want an open platform, or their own phone. They started with the platform ("PlaysForSure") play, but soon decided to pursue their own vertical ("Zune"). The problems with the platform play are the lack of at least one strong competitor, and the bane of Java: "write once, test everywhere". The explosion of test environments make it difficult for small shops to ship a quality Android app. Plus the Android market is mostly people who (a) didn't want to leave Verizon, or (b) want a cheaper phone / plan, or (c) have control issues. The end result has been that the Android app market is a toy, and the AppStore is the winner taking all. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and predictions. I have no intention of changing your mind. But know that your arguments are classic second place arguments: "people will change because they want this feature", "developers are afraid of failure". People do not change until they feel second rate (the complete iPhone experience is extraordinarily better than a less restricted app store). Developers are motivated by possible success, not possible failure. In short, the iPhone will lose when people start buying something else. Nothing that anyone says in a forum has any bearing on that at all. Apple is working harder than anyone else to win, and they are far ahead.

jacoblyles 17y ago

When a retail store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to another retail store. When the app store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to ??????

GHFigs 17y ago
...another retail store.
chaostheory 17y ago
... another app store. I believe there are (or will be) about five competing app stores.
arantius 17y ago
> When the app store chooses not to carry a software product, you can always go to ?????? ... one of the other mobile platforms. The OP listed four alternatives.