Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mentioning Android Is a No-No In iPhone App Store

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the wash-your-mouth-out dept.

Censorship 441

donberryman writes "Apple has told a software developer that its application cannot be included in the iPhone App Store if it mentions Google Android. The developer just wanted to mention that the app was a finalist in Google's Android Developer's Challenge." The developer complied with apparent good humor. Here is their blog post, which includes the text of the iPhone store's not-quite-rejection.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Android (5, Funny)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035712)

There's not an app for that.

We're all mind readers (5, Insightful)

SQLz (564901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035720)

Wow the list of magical things you can't do with your iPhone app sure is growing.

Re:We're all mind readers (5, Funny)

ahankinson (1249646) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035894)

Want an app that mentions Android? There's an app for.... oh, wait. Scratch that.

Re:We're all mind readers (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035940)

So my new game "Android Clone Phone Home" might need a bit of a rewrite then???

Re:We're all mind readers (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036010)

And what kills me is that all of the iPhone limitations are caused by Apple being shitty company. Seriously, Apple, why the fuck can't I sync my iPod Touch on Linux? It's not that nobody is willing to make a program to do it; its that Apple went out of their way to make this impossible. It's the first and last Apple product I'll ever make the mistake of buying.

Re:We're all mind readers (5, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036096)

I was rather irritated to find that my nice, new 16GB iPod Touch, shiny and gorgeous and amazing as it is, does not present as a USB mass storage device, unlike pretty-much every other mp3 player including most iPods to date. Great, so now I need to carry a USB memory stick with me as well? Thanks Apple.

Re:We're all mind readers (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036140)

That's been a known limitation since, well, forever. How did you miss that in your basic research before spending several hundred dollars on a device specifically known on Slashdot to be artificially limited by the manufacturer?

Re:We're all mind readers (0, Flamebait)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036374)

Please. You expect way too much sense from an Apple hater.

A tip to the GP: Displaying your ignorance and stupidity to the world does not actually reflect poorly on Apple.

Re:We're all mind readers (0, Troll)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036526)

Please. You expect way too much sense from an Apple hater.

Please. He hates Apple so much he was willing to spend several hundred dollars on one of their products.

A tip to the GP: Displaying your ignorance and stupidity to the world does not actually reflect poorly on Apple.

A tip to the parent: If you are the one responsible for that gallery of hipster wannabes circle jerking and in some cases cutting Apple logos into their flesh, displaying your stupidity to the world not only reflects poorly on you, but also on Apple.

Yeah, he should have left that to Apple (0, Offtopic)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036556)

A tip to you. You are totally correct, and are posting in a thread which does actually reflect poorly on Apple. And they managed to do it without any help from Tim C.

Re:We're all mind readers (3, Insightful)

Buelldozer (713671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036190)

My mother gave my son a 32G iPod touch for Christmas. The iPod itself is a fantastic piece of gear but every time I have to launch iTunes to sync music into it I go on a 15 minute profanity riddled rant. iTunes is buggy, slow, and generally the biggest pile of shit software that I am forced to use. To say that I hate it with the intensity of a thousand burning stars would be an _understatement_.

Why, oh why, won't Apple let me push music to it like every other, non-Apple, media player that we own?

Steve Jobs deserves to be kicked in the DICK for this, hard.

Re:We're all mind readers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036266)

Windows user says
iTunes isn't so good!
Apple punish you!

Re:We're all mind readers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036288)

It used to be A LOT slower than it is today. I wouldn't say it's that bad in its current state. But other products seem so much better than iTunes--it really sucks we are forced to use it

Re:We're all mind readers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036326)

You should try Media Monkey. Media Monkey is a Music Library/Media Library that allows you to synch your music and movies to your iPod. I know that I use it to convert flac to MP3 but MM does recognize iPod hardware.

Re:We're all mind readers (5, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036502)

I've had it explained to me that it makes much more sense to build the metadata index on a powerful PC, rather than building the functionality into each mp3 player.

My $40 sandisk indexes a couple of gigabytes in about 10 seconds, so I scratched my head too.

Re:We're all mind readers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036194)

Don't worry, any company that has tried to introduce artificial limitations like this always ends up defunct soon enough. Apple is just lasting longer than most.

It'll probably start with the developers. They'll get sick and tired of paying $99 a year just to develop goddamn cell phone apps. They'll get sick and tired of Apple's unnecessary censorship and app publication restrictions. They'll move to more open platforms.

It'll continue with the users. Those, such as yourself, who buy Apple products expecting a useful product will become dismayed, never buy another Apple product, and will suggest to other people that they also avoid Apple.

Eventually, the near-religious Apple fanatics will lose interest. Their market is basically made up of those born between 1980 and 1995, the so-called "Hipster" generation. In a few short years, we'll see these people grow up, having faced real-world financial pressure since leaving college. They'll have kids, and won't have money for over-priced Apple designer products.

The next generation, those born after 1995, don't give a fuck about Apple and their products. Hell, I was in the mall last week and overheard a group of teens making fun of Apple products as being for "queerfags". Five years ago, these are the sort of teens who'd be going fucking crazy for iPods.

Re:We're all mind readers (3, Insightful)

Buelldozer (713671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036290)

I know, replying to an AC and all that, but I hate iTunes so bad I'm going to do it anyway.

I like the iPod touch and would like to have one for myself but I absolutely, positively, 100% WILL NOT buy an iPod as long as I'm forced to use iTunes. It's just not going to fucking happen. I am advising my friends and family not to buy them either, based SOLELY on how terrible iTunes is.

Once I'm forced to use iTunes a few more times my hatred will probably reach the level of a holy war.

Re:We're all mind readers (1)

KimiDalamori (579444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036536)

I use Open Source to put music on my Ipod. GTKpod, Amarok, etc... And yes, by the way, there are FOSS utilities that will allow you to mount even a non-jailbroken Ipod touch out there. Google IFuse, for example

Re:We're all mind readers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036392)

They'll get sick and tired of paying $99 a year just to develop goddamn cell phone apps.

Except 99 dollars for most programmers is maybe 3-4 hours of pay. I think you significantly overestimate this as other costs will far eclipse it.

Re:We're all mind readers (1, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036478)

It'll probably start with the developers. They'll get sick and tired of paying $99 a year just to develop goddamn cell phone apps. They'll get sick and tired of Apple's unnecessary censorship and app publication restrictions. They'll move to more open platforms.

That's amusing considering the app developer himself says: "Apple is a wonderful company to work with."

It'll continue with the users. Those, such as yourself, who buy Apple products expecting a useful product will become dismayed, never buy another Apple product, and will suggest to other people that they also avoid Apple.

You widely overestimate the impact of the whining of a bunch of Slashtards on Apple's consumers. Why would they get dismayed when Apple has huge customer satisfaction? The world at large doesn't care what a bunch of DRM-whining neckbeards think, no matter how much you wish it so.

Re:We're all mind readers (0, Offtopic)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036106)

Can you mention Tesco on your in-store product advertising, including the labeling, when stocking it in Walmart? Why is this any different?

Re:We're all mind readers (3, Insightful)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036254)

Because it's a selling point for the app. Take "Bump" for example... Simply stating it's compatible with Android and iPhone is a huge selling point (if they charged for the app). Especially as more and more apps are letting you interact with other people, it's definitely a good selling point that you can interact with non iPhone users.

Is this type of advertising hurting Apple? Not in the least. In fact, I'd argue that it's doing the exact opposite. With the rejection of an app because it said "Android" in it, it makes me wonder if there's any commitment on their part to support device interoperability (even if just on the app level)... And that question COULD hurt them on the business end (and the power users who are on the fence)...

Re:We're all mind readers (1)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036146)

I don't know about you, but this is reassuring. Apple's getting nervous, which means that it's seriously considering Android a threat now.

Flash of stupidity... (-1, Troll)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035776)

I'm with Apple on this one. Does anybody think Barnes and Noble would be willing to post a sign saying your book was #38 in its category on Amazon? Do you think Best Buy will post an ad saying the censored version of your album is a Wal-Mart exclusive?

You can't expect to place ads for a competing store's award in another retail store.

Re:Flash of stupidity... (1)

cohensh (1358679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035836)

Does anybody think Barnes and Noble would be willing to post a sign saying your book was #38 in its category on Amazon?

They would mention a book is a national best seller, even if the majority of the books were sold on Amazon. He's not promoting Android, he's promoting the fact that he was a finalist in a competition, which just happened to be hosted for Android apps.

Re:Flash of stupidity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31035892)

Not to mention all the apps on the Android store with references to the iPhone.

Re:Flash of stupidity... (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036360)

And they wouldn't refuse to carry the book if the manufacturer shipped it with a sticker on it saying "Voted Best New Author In Amazon.com Awards" or something, which seems like a pretty decent analogy to this case.

Re:Flash of stupidity... (2, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035886)

Does anybody think Barnes and Noble would be willing to post a sign saying your book was #38 in its category on Amazon?

Yes?

"Hey they book got good reviews, it must be good, let me buy it."

Impulse purchasing ftw.

Re:Flash of stupidity... (5, Insightful)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035888)

Lots of books have their review list, etc. shown on the back. Do you think the Washington Post wouldn't review a book that has "#4 NYT Best Seller" on the cover?

Was it your flash of stupidity you meant? (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035934)

Does anybody think Barnes and Noble would be willing to post a sign saying your book was #38 in its category on Amazon?

No, but I see all the time people with stickers on their book covers indicating their position on the New York Times Best Sellers list, or the Oprah Bookclub.

You can't expect to place ads for a competing store's award in another retail store.

This isn't that. This is advertising that you won a Fields Metal at a Nobel Consortium (with an enormous pinch of salt).

No, but... (4, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036230)

Does anybody think Barnes and Noble would be willing to post a sign saying your book was #38 in its category on Amazon?

No, but then Barnes and Noble isn't the only place you can sell your book. If you don't like their policies, you can also put it up for sale on Amazon, Books-A-Million, any number of local bookstores, and probably even stores like Wal-Mart, Target, etc.

On the other hand, Apple's app store is the only place to offer applications for iPhones, iTouches, and now iPads. The author of this application can't simply go through some alternate means of distributing his application without asking people to jailbreak their device, something that is at best iffy to do if they want to maintain service.

If Apple would let developers put their apps up for download from their own web site or alternate app stores, then I wouldn't complain. Apple has the right to accept, deny, or place any conditions on apps in its app store that they want. However, that's only half the story. My problem with their attitude is that they have set themselves up so that their store is the only store in town; they have a monopoly over distribution of iDevice applications. They have final authority over what I can and can't run on a device that I own, and as this story illustrates, they are grossly misusing that authority.

Personally, I can't understand why anyone would want to by an iPad, given that it is going to maintain this paradigm. With phones, people are somewhat used to this. With the iPad pushing into the netbook and ultraportable laptop market, though, it is completely unacceptable. Imagine if you bought, for example, an HP laptop, and they told you the following: "Congratulations on your new HP laptop! To obtain applications, visit apps.hp.com. Oh, and we're sorry if it causes any inconvenience, but that is the only way you may install applications on this new laptop. Everything else is blocked, and if we find out that you're trying to install apps from anywhere except hp.com, your laptop could be deactivated. Congratulations again!" Well, that's Apple, and it boggles my mind that anyone would tolerate it.

These shenanigans are precisely why I, as a developer, got a refund on my developer program application and told them that I will be not be developing for the iDevices. It's also why I, who used to be an advocate for Apple devices, am strongly urging people to not buy their products these days.

Freetard alert! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036284)

Freetard pretends to be an apple developer and "switches" back to useless platform, news at 11!

Re:Flash of stupidity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036298)

Best Buy will post an ad saying the censored version of your album is a Wal-Mart exclusive

That wouldn't exactly be advertisement for Wal-Mart, though; rather the opposite. :P

Re:Flash of stupidity... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036308)

The flash of supidity is thinking visitors to the iPhone App Store have any significant interest in Android apps.

Unless they also have an Android phone, in which case they are going over to the Market for those apps.

More Apple paintywaists, and more=less. Not a real big deal, but I wonder how Apple would react to a developer who mentioned their app was a finalist for a Nokia or Microsoft competition.

And the dev has a sense of humor. So they don't seem to need the mentions to achieve their goals. Good for them.

Apple can bite ME.

The wording of Apple's reply (5, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035778)

The wording of Apple's reply is a gem in and of itself:

While your application has not been rejected, it would be appropriate to remove “Finalist in Google’s Android Developer’s Challenge!” from the Application Description.

Please log into iTunes Connect to make appropriate changes to the Application Description now to avoid an interruption in the availability of Flash of Genius: SAT Vocab 2.2 on the iPhone App Store.

That's a nice app you have there; would be a shame if anything happened to it...

Re:The wording of Apple's reply (1)

TehZorroness (1104427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035932)

(mods) This is not funny, it's the truth.

Re:The wording of Apple's reply (1)

solevita (967690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035954)

According to TFA, Apple apparently replied with "503 Service Temporarily Unavailable". Harsh but fair.

David or Goliath, Which One Today? (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035788)

So how is this developer's desire to port something from Android to the iPhone and advertise it different from Apple's desire to have Windows applications running on OSX [apple.com] and actively advertise it?

Oh, now I get it. You push the little guys around [wikipedia.org] when you're the big man on campus [macobserver.com] . Certainly is interesting I can find literature about Symbian [apple.com] on your site. Tell me, if a very popular Symbian or Blackberry app was ported to the iPhone, would you allow the developer to advertise it? Because I'm betting you would.

Well considering Steve is a god.... (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035822)

I wouldn't take bets.

Re:Well considering Steve is a god.... (1)

Scragglykat (1185337) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036296)

Or a devil... people worship them too.

Re:David or Goliath, Which One Today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036476)

...Apple's desire to have Windows applications running on OSX [apple.com] ...

slightly wrong ... Boot Camp allows Windows OS to run on Mac Intel hardware, separate from OSX. i.e. Multi Boot

But you can use 3rd party OSX software Parallels and VMWare Fusion though to do what you initially described, which is Windows and Windows apps running on top of OSX.

Class dismissed.

When is this ever false? (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035810)

Even if beginning with the best of intentions, a censor will always, eventually, come to use his power to censor to benefit himself.

Re:When is this ever false? (-1, Redundant)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035856)

^^^^This

Re:When is this ever false? (3, Insightful)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036182)

Except, in this case, Apple didn't even start with the best of intentions.

Re:When is this ever false? (2, Insightful)

RPoet (20693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036240)

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." -- Judge Aaron Satie

Re:When is this ever false? (1)

trickyD1ck (1313117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036252)

A company wants to have competitive advantage and make profit. News at eleven. The only censor we should be concerned of is the government.

Re:When is this ever false? (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036378)

Why? If an organization can stifle me, and does so, what difference does it make whether that organization is a company or a government?

Re:When is this ever false? (1)

Haxzaw (1502841) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036480)

Because the government is the government and a company is a company. The US government is required by the constitution to allow freedom of speech, a company is not. A company intends to turn a profit, and if what you say may harm that potential, they don't have to publish it.

Remember a time.. (1, Insightful)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035816)

Does anyone remember way back when anti-competitive behavior was illegal? I guess it just depends on which company does it.

Re:Remember a time.. (5, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036008)

Yes, it does depend on what company does it. Anti-competitive behavior is legal until you're a monopoly, then its not. Doing things to undermine the competition is perfectly competitive until you're in a position where there is no more serious competition left in the market. Also, please be advised that the app store isn't the whole of "the market," the app store is apple's contribution to the market.

Re:Remember a time.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036206)

So, just out of interest, if the App store's not a monopoly and I own an iPhone and I want to download and run apps without using Apple's App store without jailbreaking my phone and voiding my warranty, which store would you recommend to allow me to do that? Or are you suggesting I have to go spend £500 on a new phone every time a company does something I disagree with?

Re:Remember a time.. (3, Insightful)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036582)

The latter, of course.

Apple could have come out with a phone that could not have any apps added to it at all. This would have been perfectly legal. Silly, perhaps, but legal.

Taking this same phone that can't have apps added to it and allowing apps to be added from Apple's site is no more illegal than the previous situation.

IOW, you are an idiot.

There's not just monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036372)

There's not just monopoly. Anticompetitive does NOT require that you have a monopoly. Neither does collusion or illegal tying.

Re:Remember a time.. (2, Insightful)

Shatrat (855151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036052)

It's not really illegal until you've actually eliminated or prevented competition through it.
As it is hopefully the backlash from their North Korea style platform management should be enough to handle it.
I know I certainly wouldn't have an iPhone at any price.

Re:Remember a time.. (1)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036220)

It's not really illegal until you've actually eliminated or prevented competition through it.

It's not even illegal then if the government sanctions your monopoly.

Re:Remember a time.. (0)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036578)

Ummm.... your choice of words is unfortunate.

"Sanction" either means permission or punishment. Which is meant is usually clear by context, but... either could be true for the brief sentence you wrote.

Are you saying that it's not really illegal even though the government has punished the convicted monopolist? (i.e., you come across as a fanboi, because not even the government has to power to outlaw us mwahahaha). Or did you mean it's not really illegal if the government gives your monopoly its explicit or tacit permission.

The latter seems more of a reasonable explanation, but OTOH this is /. and "reasonable" doesn't even make it into the Top 10 list of assessment criteria for the utterances found here.

Re:Remember a time.. (4, Insightful)

zlogic (892404) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036458)

IPhone's app market definetly has a larger marketshare than Android. They're using this to silence developers mentioning other platforms, basically that's like Microsoft telling an app vendor that their app will be erased from all Windows users' PCs if the app's packaging contains a "compatible with Mac" logo. And a "best Mac app of the year" award.

AppStoreRejections.slashdot.org (-1, Troll)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035820)

Rejections for losers. Stuff that doesn't matter.

Could we have a new slashdot section for this so I can filter out this crap?

Re:AppStoreRejections.slashdot.org (4, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035992)

You clicked through and made 2 root level comments. That doesn't speak to you trying to ignore it.

Re:AppStoreRejections.slashdot.org (1, Flamebait)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036104)

Good catch. I think an apple fanboy got his feathers ruffled a bit. Blind loyalty is blind.

Re:AppStoreRejections.slashdot.org (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036130)

When he is around, he usually posts (at least) 2 root level comments to every story.

It sort of seems like spamming, but not quite. It is mostly just odd. I don't think it is driven by Apple lovin'.

It's my app store, and I'll censor if I want to... (1)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035844)

Apple is certainly clear on what they want control over. Flash on the iPhone anyone? NOT!

Makes Sense (0, Troll)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035872)

While I'm sure many will eagerly jump forward to proclaim, yet again, how evil Apple has become, to me, this just makes sense. Mentioning that the app was a finalist in Google's Android Developer's Challenge implies that the app is compatible with an Android system. Even if one moron downloads it thinking that it will work on their Andriod phone, it's one person too many. Makes sense to me.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035990)

Even if one moron downloads it thinking that it will work on their Andriod [sic] phone, it's one person too many. Just as soon as somebody publishes an Android app that allows you to download software from the Apple App store to your Android, that comment might actually make start making sense.

Re:Makes Sense (1, Flamebait)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036080)

You know that an iTunes App Store application won't work on an Android phone. I know that. Do you think every single "average" user knows that?

And thanks for highlighting my typo. Good on ya.

Re:Makes Sense (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036170)

You know that an iTunes App Store application won't work on an Android phone. I know that. Do you think every single "average" user knows that?

Of course they don't, but that's irrelevant. There's no physical way for the user to try to put an iPhone app on their Android phone. Likely, they'd try to search for it in the Android Market, and they'd find... the Android version.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036280)

How is that different to the situation in the mobile phone app market for the last decade? You're lucky if you can find an app that works reliably over more than a handful of current generation phones, start branching out with something older or something cutting edge and your chances drop still further, and the requirements for these things tend to be incredibly confusing to the end user (who generally doesn't even know what OS their phone is running).

Re:Makes Sense (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036390)

You know that an iTunes App Store application won't work on an Android phone. I know that. Do you think every single "average" user knows that?

Android has its own app store, prominently displayed on its phones. Are you seriously suggesting that someone would ignore the app store on their phones, and try to run software never intended for their phone, despite the well-publicized link between iTunes and the iPhone, and the fact that even the most cursory explanation of features (for a true newbie) from the salesperson would explain to them where to get apps from?

If people such as that exist, I highly doubt they're capable of dialing phones, let alone using smartphones.

Re:Makes Sense (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036420)

Exactly how do think an "average" user would plan to get the application from the iPhone where they made the purchase over to the Android (since, like all average users, they own 2 cell phones)? I'm pretty sure the "average" user is familiar with the "buy it on this phone, use it on this phone" pattern, which eliminates all of the potential confusion right there.

Re:Makes Sense (0, Redundant)

hrimhari (1241292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036270)

Don't feed the troll!

Re:Makes Sense (1)

SquirrelCrack (522382) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036186)

While I'm sure many will eagerly jump forward to proclaim, yet again, how evil Apple has become, to me, this just makes sense. Mentioning that the app was a finalist in Google's Android Developer's Challenge implies that the app is compatible with an Android system. Even if one moron downloads it thinking that it will work on their Andriod phone, it's one person too many. Makes sense to me.

Really Mods?! Who was he trolling? morons? To top it off, he actually has a valid point.

Makes sense (5, Insightful)

Flavio (12072) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035880)

Apple can't have Android inside Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field.

Re:Makes sense (3, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036018)

Of course not. It causes a ripple in the field bubble and will start a cascading collapse killing everyone inside or transporting pieces of them to random locations. We would have arms and other body parts fused to buildings all across Cupertino and that would be a big Faux Pas in social circles.

To avoid being embarrassed at the next dinner party keep all things android at least 20 feet from your apple iPhone or iTouch.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036338)

Well, I've used Android...it's a little fugly but I doubt it's capable of *that.*

Uuuuh wrong? (4, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035948)

I think everyone's going to dogpile on Apple for this, but I think they're missing the point, the point of the removal isn't the word Android, or Google, but the whole phrase of Google Android Developer Contest. They want to be disassociated with that contest. Given that Apple hasn't delisted apps that claim compatibility with other phones, and they even list a whole crap load of Android podcasts and other Android content in the iTunes store, I don't think Apple's paranoid about just the Apple or Google part.

Re:Uuuuh wrong? (4, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036062)

Right, they don't want their devlopers to realize that Google encourages and rewards outstanding developers.

What flavor is Steve's Koolaid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036450)

It is amazing how Apple Koolaid drinkers will spin and twist events to absolve Apple of any wrongdoing 99% of the time.

Re:Uuuuh wrong? (3, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036546)

the point of the removal isn't the word Android, or Google, but the whole phrase of Google Android Developer Contest.

That's not what Apple's response says at all:

we found that your application contains inappropriate or irrelevant platform information in the Application Description and/or Release Notes sections ... Providing future platform compatibility plans or other general platform references are not relevant in the context of the iPhone App Store.

So, yes, this is about Android as a whole, not just the contest.

Appstore model is broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31035952)

It's getting clearer and clearer that the appstore model is quite broken.

While I can see why Apple would want to keep it like that (they make loads of money off of it), a far better (for the consumer and community) model would be a packaging system á la apt/yum with added hooks for payment for commercial apps. That way you could add your app to any repo that would accept it, or start your own repo.

There are a few security considerations to this approach, but I'm sure they could be worked out.

I sincerely hope Android/Google can move in this direction.

Re:Appstore model is broken (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036474)

There are already 3rd party app stores for the Android. Not sure how reputable they are, but they do exist. To release a package you still need a $25 developer certificate from Google so the phone can verify the source of the application, but once the jar is built you can install it from any source you like.

Advertising... or not? (3, Interesting)

Mark19960 (539856) | more than 4 years ago | (#31035974)

I don't see this guy mentioning that his application was a finalist in a developer challenge as such.
If anything it makes it stand out...

Gee, how did Apple find out in the sea of 5,000 applications that turn your phone into a flashlight?
They probably search for 'android' and snuff the mention of it out.

It is their store.... they can do what they want and for that reason I don't buy from it.
I have seen tons of apps on the android store that mention iPhone or the fact that the same application was written for it.
We don't see Google snuffing those out....
This Apple has worms in it.

New app submission (5, Interesting)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036050)

I wonder how a game where an archer (who just happens to look like a certain Android) shoots an Apple (that just happens to have a bite taken out of it) off of it's pedestal would be received? Hrmmmm...

re (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31036100)

i, for one, welcome our new apple overlord

Censorship - of course (1)

walt77 (1601935) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036120)

We shouldn't be too surprised as censorship is among the usual tools of choice for dictatorial governments. Who expected benevolence?

Re:Censorship - of course (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036560)

Since when Apple is a government?

And don't mention the war! (0, Offtopic)

andrut (1002545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036228)

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right. [returns to the Germans] So! It's all forgotten now, and let's hear no more about it. So, that's two egg mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Hermann Goering, and four Colditz salads.

Not supprised (1)

bobwrit (1232148) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036250)

I'm not surprised by this. Apple is well known for censorship/DRM.

Clicking on the blog link... (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036292)

It amused me that when I clicked on the link to the blog, I was returned a "503: Service Not Available" page.

I guess they are being hammered by Slashdot traffic right now, but I thought it also was a curiously coincidental comment on Apple's own response to their app.

Just reword it to (3, Funny)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036348)

"Winner of the Google developer challenge for (competing app Apple forbids the name of)"

Creativity, so long as we approve of it (2, Informative)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036354)

HEIL JOBS!

Objectively speaking... (0, Troll)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036388)

Why is Apple demonized for not willing to subsidize their competitors advertising?

Hmmm (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036432)

You know it's rather funny to see all the whining and bitching and demonizing of Apple over this when the app developer himself says:

I suppose it’s logical, and I’m not complaining; Apple is a wonderful company to work with. I took out the offending bit from the description.

Let's See if I understand (1)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036444)

Apple doesn't want to list an app that mentions a competitor. (And in a fairly irrelevant way, too. The fact that another version of the app won an award doesn't necessary have any bearing on the iPhone incarnation, does it?) So, in effect, they don't want to advertise for the competition on their own system.

OK, maybe it seems a bit petty, but this isn't really censorship. It seems more like intelligent business practice.

Shame on Apple for taking this route (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036464)

Jeez, Apple, what were you thinking when you did this? You come across as a bully. As a Mac user I'm disappointed.

1999 iMac DV SE, 200? eMac, multiple iPod shuffles, 2.4 duo 15" MacBook Pro, iPod Touch 2G, iPhone 3GS

Re:Shame on Apple for taking this route (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036498)

I suppose it’s logical, and I’m not complaining; Apple is a wonderful company to work with.

From the horses mouth.

Old and new wordings in app description (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036470)

Old wording: Finalist in Google's Android Developer's Challenge!

New wording: Finalist in Large Internet Search Company's Human-Looking Robot Developer's Challenge!

At least he was able to preserve the basic meaning in the reworded version.

Attention (2, Insightful)

lluBdeR (466879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036532)

Android is now an un-word

Chink in the armor? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036564)

Stevie boy is finally cracking up? This sounds like the (lost) battle with Microsoft back in the 80s.

We don't serve their kind here! (5, Funny)

xleeko (551231) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036570)

Your droids ... They'll have to wait outside.

503'd! (1)

BerretSO4 (934290) | more than 4 years ago | (#31036598)

Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. ^^ The Slashdot Effect is with us and very, very real, my friends. :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?