4 ms·

If your "business" is dependent on repackaging otherwise free content — that you may not have the rights to — then, is it really a surprise that it gets shut do

by Zev 17y ago

If your "business" is dependent on repackaging otherwise free content — that you may not have the rights to — then, is it really a surprise that it gets shut down?

vaksel 17y ago
then its up to apple not to approve the stuff during the approval process. They pretty much used a nuclear option, without trying something less lethal.
- Zev 17y ago
  My guess is that the App Store reviewers don't look at where the content is from, and instead look at what the content actually is. In this case, the content was OK. The content source was questionable. The reviewers at Apple decided to OK the apps. And they then received enough reports that it was pulled. If the reviewers didn't approve the apps initially, we would be seeing a different story: "Apple rejects harmless application from developer". The App Store has problems. But this decision fixed one small problem that existed, not created another problem. //Edit: And from the article, Apple did try less lethal options. It sounds like they contacted Khalid and told him their concerns. And he chose to ignore Apple.
logic 17y ago
If your "business" is dependent on publishing an application on Apple's App Store then, is it really a surprise that it gets shut down? :) It's tongue-in-cheek, but it's true: this isn't a free marketplace, it's Apple's playground, and only the business models and application domains that Apple approves of will be permitted. I don't like this guy any more than anyone else here, but a single decision by Apple effectively killed that aspect of his business. Similarly, if you were to build a business around, say, a Google Voice application for the iPhone, you'd be in the same situation.
- BigZaphod 17y ago
  The implication that it's somehow wrong to base a business on the App Store is goofy. It's not much different from basing one on a single OS or a mobile platform or even a particular line of automobile or type of entertainment. It's not a requirement that Apple (or any other company) protect your business model at the expense of their own.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    True. But you could at least expect: - consistency - open rules - an appeal process The way it is it is more like a gamble.
    - BigZaphod 17y ago
      I agree to a point, but I don't think this is much different than developing accessories for someone else's product(s) that need to be approved by the owner of the target product. (Example: Official iPod accessories.) Those companies seem to get on just fine risking some money in R&D while trying to get official approval for an item. You can bet they don't just develop in a vacuum, either, but that's what a lot of the very loudly complaining app store devs seem to be doing. It doesn't have to be such a huge gamble developing for the iPhone. There are Apple representatives that developers can talk to, meet in person at events like WWDC, and even send development builds to. They give feedback and can warn of potential issues with approval, etc. These resources are there, but somewhat scarce. Apple obviously cannot guarantee everyone who pays their $99 access to significant face time with an insider without the dev putting in some effort. As a developer who's aiming to be serious about this, you have to be proactive in elbowing your way into the system - but once you're in, the "risk" is greatly reduced. The big iPhone and OSX studios all know this and work behind the scenes within the system to the benefit of both parties (usually).
      - elai 17y ago
        When you build accessories for the ipod, you talk with apple before you go and make it to see if they would be fine with it.

by Zev 17y ago

If your "business" is dependent on repackaging otherwise free content — that you may not have the rights to — then, is it really a surprise that it gets shut down?

vaksel 17y ago

then its up to apple not to approve the stuff during the approval process. They pretty much used a nuclear option, without trying something less lethal.

Zev 17y ago
My guess is that the App Store reviewers don't look at where the content is from, and instead look at what the content actually is. In this case, the content was OK. The content source was questionable. The reviewers at Apple decided to OK the apps. And they then received enough reports that it was pulled. If the reviewers didn't approve the apps initially, we would be seeing a different story: "Apple rejects harmless application from developer". The App Store has problems. But this decision fixed one small problem that existed, not created another problem. //Edit: And from the article, Apple did try less lethal options. It sounds like they contacted Khalid and told him their concerns. And he chose to ignore Apple.

logic 17y ago

If your "business" is dependent on publishing an application on Apple's App Store then, is it really a surprise that it gets shut down? :) It's tongue-in-cheek, but it's true: this isn't a free marketplace, it's Apple's playground, and only the business models and application domains that Apple approves of will be permitted. I don't like this guy any more than anyone else here, but a single decision by Apple effectively killed that aspect of his business. Similarly, if you were to build a business around, say, a Google Voice application for the iPhone, you'd be in the same situation.

BigZaphod 17y ago
The implication that it's somehow wrong to base a business on the App Store is goofy. It's not much different from basing one on a single OS or a mobile platform or even a particular line of automobile or type of entertainment. It's not a requirement that Apple (or any other company) protect your business model at the expense of their own.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  True. But you could at least expect: - consistency - open rules - an appeal process The way it is it is more like a gamble.
  - BigZaphod 17y ago
    I agree to a point, but I don't think this is much different than developing accessories for someone else's product(s) that need to be approved by the owner of the target product. (Example: Official iPod accessories.) Those companies seem to get on just fine risking some money in R&D while trying to get official approval for an item. You can bet they don't just develop in a vacuum, either, but that's what a lot of the very loudly complaining app store devs seem to be doing. It doesn't have to be such a huge gamble developing for the iPhone. There are Apple representatives that developers can talk to, meet in person at events like WWDC, and even send development builds to. They give feedback and can warn of potential issues with approval, etc. These resources are there, but somewhat scarce. Apple obviously cannot guarantee everyone who pays their $99 access to significant face time with an insider without the dev putting in some effort. As a developer who's aiming to be serious about this, you have to be proactive in elbowing your way into the system - but once you're in, the "risk" is greatly reduced. The big iPhone and OSX studios all know this and work behind the scenes within the system to the benefit of both parties (usually).
    - elai 17y ago
      When you build accessories for the ipod, you talk with apple before you go and make it to see if they would be fine with it.