Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

241 comments

App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (5, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879150)

It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions and approving apps that would surely be rejected like Vonage's VoIP, Opera's web browser, and this one and letting them in on their delayed applications, or calling up submitters and asking them to resubmit previously rejected apps. This is far from an isolated incident, and I wouldn't be surprised if we find Google Voice in the app store soon.

I think there's several factors involved here:
- FCC investigation into AT&T... if they can't allow streaming video from Sling but can allow streaming video from MLB, what's the difference? If they can't allow streaming video because of lack of bandwidth, why didn't they buy more when spectrum recently went up for auction?
- Government investigation into Apple... If they're abusing a monopoly app store when there's clearly ways to implement competitors on jailbroken devices... why the monopoly?
- Bad press... every major app rejected is a reason to get a Droid or some other more open development platform's device.
- Competition... When the EDGE iPhone first came out, it was revolutionary carrying only the default 20 apps because it was doing things that it's at-the-time competitors couldn't do. Now there's several platforms that look like the iPhone and do things the iPhone doesn't... that iDon't/Droid Does ad must have gotten to them.

So there you have it... the tide is changing, and we might see some more "impossible" things happening soon.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (0, Redundant)

cbreak (1575875) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879216)

You say Apple has the monopoly on WHAT? It's own store? Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products. I doubt the government wants to change that. And since when is there an EDGE iPhone? I don't think there's something like that.

To me, bad publicity is the most likely reason.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879268)

You must be new here.

The first generation iPhone lacked the 3G technology and therefore would only work on AT&T's EDGE data network. These are the models that are too old and slow to get the forthcoming iPhone OS 4.0. Time for those users to upgrade...

As for monopoly on their own store... yep. Remember the Microsoft bundling mess? Taking one thing you have a monopoly on and using it to get an advantage somewhere else is not allowed.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879302)

As for monopoly on their own store... yep. Remember the Microsoft bundling mess? Taking one thing you have a monopoly on and using it to get an advantage somewhere else is not allowed.

Here's the thing, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market like Microsoft had (and has) on the desktop operating system market. You can't have a monopoly on your on products and services. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones, it would be impossible for them to have this without having a monopoly on the smartphone market.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (3, Informative)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879426)

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones, it would be impossible for them to have this without having a monopoly on the smartphone market.

Can you link me to that other app store where I can buy applications for a non-jailbroken iphone?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (2)

santaliqueur (893476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879498)

Can you link me to that other app store where I can buy applications for a non-jailbroken iphone?

Sure, can you link me to that document that FORCED you buy an iPhone, and not the phone that you wished to use?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (0, Troll)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879524)

Can you link me to that other app store where I can buy applications for a non-jailbroken iphone?

Have you tried magicalimaginaryappstore.not?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (1, Funny)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879718)

Think of MS as the drug dealer outside your school or at a party actively pushing powders, pills and liquids.
The MS dealers also extinguish other drug dealers in the area.
Apple is more the gang suburb or crack house with a loyal following for a known product.
You have to go to them for the Apple "distortion" feel but other gangs and crack houses do exist.
You can always find a Linux grower and cultivate your own digital escape using Nordic tech.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (3, Insightful)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879834)

Do Burger King's sell Big Macs where you come from?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879452)

Oh please, that argument doesn't stand up against any scrutiny.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (3, Insightful)

XonMus (630535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879460)

Let's not forget the portable music player market, where the iPod is more dominant. Taking a step back from smart phones, and considering something more general, such as wifi-enabled portable entertainment devices, it's possible that Apple could have an undue influence on such a market. The iPad might tilt things further. All of these products are tightly tied to the iTunes App Store. Now, if Apple has undue influence on this market, are they abusing that influence by restricting these devices to run only those applications that they approve and allow into iTunes? I dunno, but it's worth asking the question.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879494)

It depends heavily on how narrowly the focus of a monopoly can be. They unquestionably do have a monopoly on iPhone/iPod/iPad applications, but is that too narrow to be considered for any sort of antitrust lawsuits?

The other question is how much of the mobile application marketshare do they have? While they don't hold a monopoly on smartphones, they are said to have somewhere in the high-ninties of the mobile application market -- can mobile applications be considered a market that is able to have a monopoly, even if the platform most of those applications are for is not a monopoly?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (1, Funny)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879530)

monopoly on the smartphone market like Microsoft had (and has) on the desktop operating system market

Further proof that geeky time-travel-inventors exploring the future first jump on slashdot to see what's going on, and then don't hesitate to post comments.

Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (2, Insightful)

DABANSHEE (154661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879604)

Apple does have a monopoly on OKing & installing apps onto iphones.

Well that's the way I understand it.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (3, Insightful)

sirsnork (530512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879644)

But you knew that going in. It's not like that wans't the case when the iPhone was a brand new product with no market share. Apple hasn't changed the rules you agreed to when you bought the product, no mater how much the market has changed

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879768)

Apple hasn't changed the rules you agreed to when you bought the product, no mater how much the market has changed.

Of course they have - if they accept Fiore's app today when they turned it down a couple of months ago, then either they have changed the rules or there was a secret rule that "Pulitizer prize winners are exempt from the rest of the rules." Either way, the rules are different than when he bought the product.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (-1, Flamebait)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879876)

Apple got in trouble for allowing an app like this in their store a few months ago that had a lot of Political satire. No one rushed to their defense then that it was freedom of speech. No, instead they received backlash about how it was offensive app.

Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don't in your colorful little world.

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879976)

Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don't in your colorful little world.

Of course, nobody likes a dictator even when they get it right occasionally..

Re:Well unless one jailbreak's one's iphone (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879862)

You mix monopoly with authority. You should stop doing that.

I also suggest if you have an issue with it you go talk to Nintendo and Microsoft which have done similar things for years.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879846)

Hey, Apple fag. How about just being honest about Apple having a monopoly on software distribution for the iPgone platform. It's not like it's not an obvious fact, so why try to hide it.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879924)

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones

Actually, I'll bet Apple's market share in smartphone applications is already larger than Microsoft's market share in PC operating systems at the time they first came under scrutiny by the DOJ.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879666)

The first and second generation iPhones have little discernable difference in CPU speed or ram. Why is the 1st generation too old, and the 2nd isn't?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879816)

The first and second generation iPhones have little discernable difference in CPU speed or ram. Why is the 1st generation too old, and the 2nd isn't?

The second generation (iPhone 3G) is too old. It won't be able to utilize many of the new capabilities of the iPhone OS 4.0, including multitasking.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (3, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879954)

The second generation (iPhone 3G) is too old. It won't be able to utilize many of the new capabilities of the iPhone OS 4.0, including multitasking.

Well, not exactly [arstechnica.com]

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (1)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879980)

The first and second generation iPhones have little discernable difference in CPU speed or ram. Why is the 1st generation too old, and the 2nd isn't?

The second generation (iPhone 3G) is too old. It won't be able to utilize many of the new capabilities of the iPhone OS 4.0, including multitasking.

interesting I read both the 3g and 3gs were getting the 4.0 upgrade

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (3, Interesting)

nickdwaters (1452675) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879708)

What market do you live in? I couldn't even use 3G in the San Francisco Bay Area and I sure can't use it in Phoenix. It drops calls like mad! Naturally I only discovered how utterly congested the network was until AFTER I'd shelled out $249.99 for my iPhone 3G. Advertisers won that round.

Apple's remarkable hostility to competion (3, Informative)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879828)

Actually free software stands in contradiction to "Every manufacturer has the monopoly on his own products." because free software means users have the freedom (permission) to develop competing products based on the free software they run. Hardware manufacturers are beginning to appear which allow one to develop competing products in much the same way. Apple's restrictions in their iPhone API license agreement are unusually hostile to distributing applications Apple does not approve of (see section 7.3 [eff.org] which says rejected iPhone applications can't be distributed anywhere else). The thing to note about Fiore's second bite at the Apple (so to speak) is that Fiore has an audience large enough to complain. Others who would use their freedom of speech (permission) by "ridiculing public figures" won't get a second chance because nobody will chat up their misfortune at choosing to deal with such an arbitrary power [eff.org] .

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879330)

that iDon't/Droid Does ad must have gotten to them.
Yeah see the problem is, almost everything the Droid claimed in the ad The Iphone did too. And did one better cause for all it's multitasking it still couldn't browse the web and handle a phone call at the same time.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879568)

Cool, where do I find emulators in the app store?

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879502)

It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions ...

Naw ... they just want to reject it again to prove they were right the first time. Remember that "Think Different" really means "Think like us" ;-)

No rethinking (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879538)

It seems like Apple is rethinking some of it's heavy-handed decisions and approving apps that would surely be rejected like Vonage's VoIP, Opera's web browser, and this one

The first two would now "surely be rejected". There was no reason for Vonage or Opera Mini not to be accepted, they fell perfectly fine within the existing rules.

The last one, the cartoon app - that did NOT fall within any published rule, and that is the problem. If you are going to have a rule, fine - but tell people what it is. There was no rule and so it lets Apple reconsider (as they are in this case) but the presence of any unpublished rules it what freaks developers out (and rightfully so).

Frankly the whole rule seems really silly, I can can of understand the stance on nudity but ridicule seems absurd to ban.

Re:No rethinking (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879566)

It was an Apple rule that anything that duplicated functionality of an included app like Skype/Google Voice/Vonage allowing phone usage or Opera allowing web browsing similar to Safari was previously cause for rejection and that rule is now looking repealed.

Re:No rethinking (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879648)

There is a rule on defamation, the mistake the reviewer made was in consider defamation and ridicule to be the same thing.

Re:No rethinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879796)

No, Apple's terms said that you cannot use VoIP over 3G, as part of the AT&T agreement I imagine. Now Apple has reversed themselves on that and allowing Skype over 3G as well as other apps like Fring

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (2, Funny)

pigphish (1070214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879618)

More likely the creative crowd/apple sheep don't think its "cool" to be banning award winning writers. This would also seem to be at odds with Apples "we are cool"/"you are fool" marketting campain.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879660)

It's a pity they couldn't do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because outside pressure threatens their image.
We know where their heart is and it will take a lot of doing the right thing before anyone believes them.

Re:App Stores Dept. of Corrections? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879840)

I wonder how much (if any) influence Android has over this decision and some others. Sure the iPhone is clearly being Android but Android is not going away and will continue to gain popularity. I think Apple will have to loosen their grip but will keep some controls to help avoid the mess that can be found in the Android app store. Though I think most of Android's market issues are mainly in the games section.

Wrong article? (5, Informative)

feuerfalke (1034288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879188)

Er... the first link is to an article headlined "Satellites key to keeping aircraft away from Iceland's volcanic cloud." I guess it's a bit much to expect Slashdot editors to actually check the links in a summary, huh?

Re:Wrong article? (4, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879214)

Must have been a Layer 8 Error.....

Re:Wrong article? (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879232)

You must be new here...

Re:Wrong article? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879280)

911878 calling 625375 new? You must think higher numbers rule around here.

Re:Wrong article? (-1, Flamebait)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879344)

Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The alternative was that you were stupid enough to think that the error was made by the site being linked to instead of /., even though that link clearly goes with the previous /. front page story about satellites keeping aircraft away from the volcanic cloud.

So, take your pick. You can be new, or you can be a moron.

Re:Wrong article? (1)

enrgeeman (867240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879504)

You would have got the joke being made about layer 8 had you looked at the satellite article linked..

Re:Wrong article? (1, Informative)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879510)

You're an idiot. The joke "layer 8 error" refers to human error, since there are only 7 layers in the 7-layer model.

Re:Wrong article? (2, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879518)

You didn't RTF(W)A... the mistaken article was from a blog called "Layer 8" so there was a double-meaning joke there that you didn't get.

Re:Wrong article? (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879550)

I'd say you've removed all doubt.

Re:Wrong article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879496)

You must be humorless.

Re:Wrong article? (3, Informative)

Snarf You (1285360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879238)

This [networkworld.com] is the link that was probably intended.

Re:Wrong article? (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879254)

Wait... when did they start putting links in these?

Re:Wrong article? (2, Funny)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879270)

Bad Satellite Forces Apple To Reconsider Banning Iceland's volcanic cloud

Re:Wrong article? (2, Funny)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879316)

You really read the article??
But this is Slashdot!

Re:Wrong article? (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879534)

Of course he didn't read the article.

It's the fact that he even tried that he should be ostracized from our community.

Re:Wrong article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879482)

Maybe due to bad press, slashdot will ask him to resubmit the article.

Re:Wrong article? (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879546)

I guess it's a bit much to expect Slashdot editors to actually check the links in a summary, huh?

The great thing is that's the link from the previous Slashdot story about - well, the Iceland volcano eruption. Which means that, presumably, they did check the link in the story and then managed to change it to the wrong link.

Re:Wrong article? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879968)

The great thing is that's the link from the previous Slashdot story about - well, the Iceland volcano eruption. Which means that, presumably, they did check the link in the story and then managed to change it to the wrong link.

Did you miss the memo? Recycling is in. Gotta help out with this global warming thingy.

Warning low flying satellites... (1)

DABANSHEE (154661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879630)

....all aircraft steer clear of Iceland & its low flying satellites.

Maybe the satellites want to keep all the aerial shots of the volcanic cloud to themselves.

Simple. (3, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879206)

If the cost of losing customers due to bad press is greater than the cost of changing their policies/practices, they will change (usually temporarily) to alleviate the bad press. Next.

Re:Simple. (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879246)

If AT&T's network can't take apps that the Verizon/Sprint/T-mobile networks can... then is the money they're getting for exclusivity from AT&T worth it?

Re:Simple. (1)

HazMat 79 (1481233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879580)

If that money was more than the money that was offered from AT&T they would not have been on that network first.

Don't get your panties in a twist (2, Insightful)

ZeBam.com (1790466) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879208)

This will be more the exception that proves the rule than anything particularly earth-shattering.

Now if only they would change their policy (4, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879220)

so that any publisher could submit apps without Apple's editorializing.

It would be nice if more publishers were allowed onto the app store, instead of only Pulitzer-prize winners.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879244)

Fortunately, you don't have to be a Pulitzer prize winner to develop an Android app.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy (1, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879382)

What are you talking about? As of April 8, 2010 there were over 185,000 apps in the App Store (source: Wikipedia App Store entry [wikipedia.org] ). I'd say that's a heck of a lot of publishers; even Opera has their browser in the App Store these days. I cannot fathom how people can fail to understand that it's Apple's store, and they are completely within their rights when it comes to deciding what will or won't be accepted. If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879430)

If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.

Check. Will do, thanks.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879562)

I cannot fathom how people can fail to understand that it's Apple's store, and they are completely within their rights when it comes to deciding what will or won't be accepted.

That's because they don't fail to understand that, it's just that it's shitty of them to be so heavy-handed about it.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879790)

Replying to undo Redundant moderation that was meant to be an Insightful.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879574)

That number of 185,000 is VERY SUSPICIOUS. Tucows says that they only have 40,000 [twocows.com] software listings. In 2007, Freshmeat.net only listed just over 43,000 [archive.org] projects. Even SourceForge only claims to have 230,000 [sourceforge.net] projects.

I find it very hard to believe that there are 185,000 apps in the App Store. Oh, wait, where did that number from the Wikipedia article actually come from? MacRumors.com. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Now I see why it sounds like bullshit.

Re:Now if only they would change their policy (1)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879664)

Never heard of hyperbole, eh?

Automatic (0, Troll)

trancemission (823050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879272)

Troll Me

Apple does this - Apple does that...... this never had anything to do with Apple censorship - Apple didn't want to get sued so a pre-emptive blanket ban on anything that could cause a problem seeems logical - you pay your money. If your wanting to view these cartoons you don't need a fucking App to do it.....

Shiny Shiny

huh (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879290)

Wow. Overzealous Slashdot babble may have actually done some good for a change. I feel stupid for bitching about it.

Re:huh (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879400)

It's not like Apple was called out just on Slashdot. I doubt that Slashdot in particular contributed to this decision.

I'd put anti-Apple links in it (5, Interesting)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879300)

If I were him, I'd put links indicating what Apple did wrong right in the splash/main screen of the app when I re-submit it. Then see if Apple dares to reject it again or will instead swallow their pride and approve it. I'd really hope for the latter, but either would help raise awareness of how problematic Apple's policies are.

do no evil (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879304)

google's motto is "do no evil",
apple's moto is "do no bad pulicity"
and they both suck at it.

Two with one stone? (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879306)

Not only is this pushing for more leniency on app content, but Fiore mentions in the article that he would like to use flash, as his cartoons are all made in flash. I doubt he could have enough weight to affect the availability of flash, but people like him can make it a more common complaint.

Re:Two with one stone? (0)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879448)

Fiore mentions in the article that he would like to use flash, as his cartoons are all made in flash. I doubt he could have enough weight to affect the availability of flash, but people like him can make it a more common complaint.

If he does, he'll lose my support. I agree that Apple screwed the pooch and that his app shouldn't have been rejected. I still don't want Flash on my iPhone, however.

Re:Two with one stone? (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879682)

Perhaps instead this will help him to use a more open format for displaying his cartoons and not one that requires an interpreter

Re:Two with one stone? (1)

nvrrobx (71970) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879896)

Why should you care what the underlying implementation is?

Why can't the developer be free to write their application in the best language / tool for the job? You may not agree that Flash is the best for this purpose, but you're not the developer.

Re:Two with one stone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879942)

If you don't want flash on your iphone than you could, for example, not install applications that use it and disable it in your browser.

Re:Two with one stone? (1)

bdenton42 (1313735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879966)

I still don't want Flash on my iPhone, however.

I don't particularly see a need for Flash on the iTouch/iPhone but leaving it off of the iPad was a stupid move, IMO.

Of course if pigs fly and Flash does becomes available you can always just not install it.

They delete them after rejecting them? (3, Interesting)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879366)

He has to *resubmit* it? What, do they delete them after they reject them? That seems odd.

Re:They delete them after rejecting them? (3, Interesting)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879486)

He has to *resubmit* it? What, do they delete them after they reject them? That seems odd.

Probably so that they can say that the second application was slightly different and/or more appropriately reviewed. If they just change their minds, it would be a blatant acknowledgment that they "screwed up" or whatever.

Re:They delete them after rejecting them? (1)

stackOVFL (1791898) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879704)

Isn't there a app for that?

Screw Them. They made thier choice (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879372)

If I was Mark I wouldn't re-submit.
Screw Apple they made their choice. Let them live with it. There is always Android.

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice (0)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879578)

If I was Mark I wouldn't re-submit. Screw Apple they made their choice. Let them live with it. There is always Android.

Sure, give up the largest smartphone software market in order to spite Apple. Smart business decision.

Look, I agree--his app should never have been rejected. Dumb move on the part of some lower-level employee. And, of course, Apple should remove the portion of their developer agreement that says apps shouldn't ridicule public figures. Hey, Apple: there's a great and long-standing American tradition of poking fun at public figures and courts have repeatedly ruled that once you enter public life, you're free game. Bad corporation, bad.

But even with all that, the guy would have to be an utter moron to pass on all the potential income, especially after he's gotten a shitload of free publicity. Apple's rejection of his app might end up paying off handsomely for him in the long run, perhaps better than if it hadn't been rejected in the first place.

Oh, and by the way: I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro. I've been using Macs since 1989 and currently own three, along with two iPhones, so you know I'm not an Apple hater However, I'm not a fanboy either. When Apple screws up, they should be called on it. In this case, they screwed up.

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879688)

Hey it is only 80million + devices versus um how many for android again?

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879792)

Hey it is only 80million + devices versus um how many for android again?

Uh...several? ;-)

Re:Screw Them. They made thier choice (2, Interesting)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879890)

Hey it is only 80million + devices versus um how many for android again?

I love how in one breath the Apple-ites are claiming Apple doesn't have a monopoly and in the next they are saying developers can't afford to the miss the market.

You gotta choose one guys...

Of course (5, Insightful)

Unka Willbur (1771596) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879390)

How many small publishers, authors or artists without access to the media that Mr. Fiore has won't ever get the lordly invite to "resubmit"" their content for King Jobs' oh-so-kindly "reconsideration"?

Facts? (5, Insightful)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879398)

Who says it was due to bad PR? You might want to avoid stating guesses as facts.

Told Ya (2, Informative)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879436)

And here's [slashdot.org] the proof

Great! Maybe there's renewed hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879468)

Maybe there's renewed hope for my "Botox Nanci Pelosi" app! Your goal is to inject botox in the right places in Nancy Pelosi's face before you run out of time. Add too much botox and her face melts. Waste time injecting the wrong spots and you could run out of Botox when you've run out of time. Great gameplay, but it violates the "no ridiculing public figure" clause of the Apple agreement.

I wouldn't do it (3, Informative)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879480)

Fuck Apple. I'd go with the google app store and call it a day.

Re:I wouldn't do it (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879696)

Of course then that would defeat the purpose because no one would see your cartoons. If you had said: F*CK apple I am going to convert my web site to something that will work on every platform, I would be with you. Going to Android would be silly.

Go with the Slate (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879512)

He should call up HP and MS and ask for an endorsement deal.

problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879564)

One of the very legitimate reason for Apple to control apps, and one we don't see often, is the fact that Apple hosts all the app store's apps on its own servers. They don't want to be hosting crap.

Of course they could just link to other servers.

spo\8ge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31879600)

but I'd rather hear quarreled on t4eir hand...!she

meh. (3, Informative)

siddesu (698447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879602)

wake me up when apple reconsiders its near-moronic app policy, not a single case. because it is the policy that is the problem, not its application.

DOJ getting tough on monopolies (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879744)

I just got a cease and desist letter from the Department of Justice - they claim I'm monopolizing my wife.

Thank you! I'll be here all week - be sure to try the buffet!

Re:DOJ getting tough on monopolies (2, Funny)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879818)

They lied.

This why phones need to be open and open network a (0, Offtopic)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31879958)

This why phones need to be open and open network as well.

Cell Phone lock in bad.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...