5 ms·

The icon is a direct copy of the iOS app icon, and the app is in violation of Marco's API rules (http://blog.instapaper.com/post/3208433429 http://blog.instapap

The icon is a direct copy of the iOS app icon, and the app is in violation of Marco's API rules (http://blog.instapaper.com/post/3208433429 http://blog.instapaper.com/post/3208433429). Outright theft? Maybe not. But definitely not kosher. [ Also, the 'developer website' is an inaccessible Chinese social network page. Awesome! ]

DanielRibeiro 16y ago
Interesting... Which Api Rules does it violate btw?
- starnix17 16y ago
  API access requires a subscription account.
  - statictype 16y ago
    That's, I believe only for the new APIs. The already existing publicly published ones are still free. That's how I understood it.
- suchire 16y ago
  How about the "Terms of Use" that say "Apps and other products and services may not use Instapaper’s name, logos, or other trademarks in their titles or logos, or in any way that implies endorsement, sponsorship, or false association with Instapaper"? http://www.instapaper.com/api/terms http://www.instapaper.com/api/terms
  - DanielRibeiro 16y ago
    Thanks. It was an honest request for clarification, not a challenge of your point.
larrywright 16y ago
Isn't the Android ecosystem awesome?
- statictype 16y ago
  I bet it is. There are probably a whole bunch of killer apps there which would never make it to the AppStore. Grooveshark is one example that comes to mind.
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > Grooveshark is one example that comes to mind. Why does it come to mind? What it so different between Grooveshark and Spotify that Spotify is on the AppStore but Grooveshark can't be? I see their iPhone application page saying they can't be on the AppStore, but no explanation as to why they can't be (and no, "Apple is unwilling to work with Grooveshark to approve our application." is not an explanation) and the blog post announcement does not provide any more information. The only mention I found is an other, older blog post saying the following: > Earlier this afternoon, Apple sent us a letter notifying us that, due to a complaint they received from Universal Music Group UK Apple's behavior seems logical and sensible here as the "gatekeeper" of their store, it's not their job to resolve trouble between UMG and Grooveshark. And again, Spotify was still in the AppStore last time I checked, so what Grooveshark's app is not, in and of itself, "a [...] killer apps there which would never make it to the AppStore."
    - statictype 16y ago
      Why does it come to mind? It comes to mind because I really wanted Grooveshark on my iPhone and would have paid for it but it's not there. (Except by jailbreaking and I'm not willing to do that) Apple's behavior seems logical and sensible here as the "gatekeeper" of their store, it's not their job to resolve trouble between UMG and Grooveshark. They're already trying to resolve trouble by doing what UMG wanted. In any case, we could nitpick over that point for hours. And again, Spotify was still in the AppStore last time I checked, so what Grooveshark's app is not, in and of itself, "a [...] killer apps there which would never make it to the AppStore." Seriously? Last time I checked, Spotify was only available in about 7 countries. (Last time being 5 minutes ago). I don't see how you could even compare the two services. They work differently. In any case, my comment wasn't specifically about Grooveshark, rather, to point out that there's a whole class of apps that people may want but would never be available on the App Store for various reasons (legitimate or otherwise) but will be available on Android.

DanielRibeiro 16y ago

Interesting... Which Api Rules does it violate btw?

starnix17 16y ago
API access requires a subscription account.
- statictype 16y ago
  That's, I believe only for the new APIs. The already existing publicly published ones are still free. That's how I understood it.
suchire 16y ago
How about the "Terms of Use" that say "Apps and other products and services may not use Instapaper’s name, logos, or other trademarks in their titles or logos, or in any way that implies endorsement, sponsorship, or false association with Instapaper"? http://www.instapaper.com/api/terms http://www.instapaper.com/api/terms
- DanielRibeiro 16y ago
  Thanks. It was an honest request for clarification, not a challenge of your point.

larrywright 16y ago

Isn't the Android ecosystem awesome?

statictype 16y ago
I bet it is. There are probably a whole bunch of killer apps there which would never make it to the AppStore. Grooveshark is one example that comes to mind.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > Grooveshark is one example that comes to mind. Why does it come to mind? What it so different between Grooveshark and Spotify that Spotify is on the AppStore but Grooveshark can't be? I see their iPhone application page saying they can't be on the AppStore, but no explanation as to why they can't be (and no, "Apple is unwilling to work with Grooveshark to approve our application." is not an explanation) and the blog post announcement does not provide any more information. The only mention I found is an other, older blog post saying the following: > Earlier this afternoon, Apple sent us a letter notifying us that, due to a complaint they received from Universal Music Group UK Apple's behavior seems logical and sensible here as the "gatekeeper" of their store, it's not their job to resolve trouble between UMG and Grooveshark. And again, Spotify was still in the AppStore last time I checked, so what Grooveshark's app is not, in and of itself, "a [...] killer apps there which would never make it to the AppStore."
  - statictype 16y ago
    Why does it come to mind? It comes to mind because I really wanted Grooveshark on my iPhone and would have paid for it but it's not there. (Except by jailbreaking and I'm not willing to do that) Apple's behavior seems logical and sensible here as the "gatekeeper" of their store, it's not their job to resolve trouble between UMG and Grooveshark. They're already trying to resolve trouble by doing what UMG wanted. In any case, we could nitpick over that point for hours. And again, Spotify was still in the AppStore last time I checked, so what Grooveshark's app is not, in and of itself, "a [...] killer apps there which would never make it to the AppStore." Seriously? Last time I checked, Spotify was only available in about 7 countries. (Last time being 5 minutes ago). I don't see how you could even compare the two services. They work differently. In any case, my comment wasn't specifically about Grooveshark, rather, to point out that there's a whole class of apps that people may want but would never be available on the App Store for various reasons (legitimate or otherwise) but will be available on Android.