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!

Apple Finally Approves Google+ App For iPhone

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 years ago | from the mark-zuckerberg-makes-angry-face dept.

Google 162

CWmike writes "Apple approved the Google+ app for the iPhone on Tuesday, and posted it to the App Store. It's unclear whether Google has created an iPad-specific app. Two weeks ago, a Google employee said that the company had submitted Google+ to the App Store ... on July 4. According to that timeline, Google's app took twice as long as the majority of submitted apps to win Apple's approval."

cancel ×

162 comments

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

!news (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816804)

Seriously, how is this even remotely news? Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps? Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe? Please explain me. It's not like Apple has any kind of relationship with Facebook. Microsoft does, and I would still be fairly certain that even Microsoft would accept it to Windows Phone 7 app store.

Oh, it's ComputerWorld and I guess they needed some visitors from slashdot again.

Re:!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816824)

Even more important... why couldn't an iphone user just access Google+ from its web browser? Do you really need a dedicated app?

Apple dragging their feet on this is still inexcusable. It's not like Google is some new upstart that no one has ever heard of. Why does the app approval take so long? Did Google fail to comply with the requirements? Did Apple think it might contain malware or something? What is the problem here?

If you're gonna have this walled-garden thingy then you need to not take so goddamned long to perform the gatekeeper function at least not without a really solid reason.

Re:!news (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816846)

Oh no! Two whole weeks! It's all part of Steve Job's sinister plan to take over the world! If the app had been approved in one week instead of two, his plans would have been foiled! Call the FTC! Antitrust! Break up Apple! Evil! Evil! Evil!

Re:!news (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 3 years ago | (#36817144)

Of course no one considers the fact that they are backlogged with iOS5 apps. They immediately assume the worst.

Re:!news (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#36817230)

are backlogged with iOS5 apps

Do you believe that the App for Google+ was only submitted two weeks ago?

What would you be saying if for two weeks apple.com disappeared from search results?

Re:!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817328)

What does that have to do with the length of time an app took to be approved at Apple?

Seriously, you guys need a hobby...

Re:!news (1)

NekSnappa (803141) | about 3 years ago | (#36817564)

How are those two things even remotely related?

Re:!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816864)

But wasn't Google+ supposed to be in private beta testing? Why is there a public app for a beta available for download? Is it beta or not? For a beta 10 million users sure is a lot too.

Re:!news (1)

Medevilae (1456015) | about 3 years ago | (#36816942)

It's at the point where it's not really a private beta, and the private tag is just to make it feel exclusive.

Re:!news (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 years ago | (#36816868)

I am not familiar with the approval process but is 2 weeks considered "a long time". I have no idea and I don't know how complex Google+ app is which might have caused the app to take longer than usual.

Re:!news (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 3 years ago | (#36817198)

The last two apps I worked on were approved around the one-week mark. However, there's a lot of variance (sometimes it's same day, sometimes three of four weeks if the reviewers find bugs or UI issues.

Being google+, it's entirely possible the reviewer had to wait 2 weeks before he was able to activate his g+ account to test it.

Re:!news (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#36817260)

Being google+, it's entirely possible the reviewer had to wait 2 weeks before he was able to activate his g+ account to test it.

So you think the Apple app tester was the last geek in Silicon Valley not to have a Google+ account?

Is there any reason not to believe that this was not just a little pissing contest between the masters of the high-tech universe?

Re:!news (2)

Hope Thelps (322083) | about 3 years ago | (#36816890)

Why does the app approval take so long? Did Google fail to comply with the requirements? Did Apple think it might contain malware or something? What is the problem here?

An extra week? Maybe caused by holidays, sickness, a couple of tougher calls that were ahead of it in the queue... this is a complete non-story.

Re:!news (3, Interesting)

ynp7 (1786468) | about 3 years ago | (#36817014)

Probably just took them that long to get an invite to G+ so they could test it.

Re:!news (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36816908)

Even more important... why couldn't an iphone user just access Google+ from its web browser? Do you really need a dedicated app?

They could use it through safari, but certain features were lacking. Photo uploading from the iphone, and the chat feature "huddle" didn't work before.

Re:!news (4, Insightful)

Altus (1034) | about 3 years ago | (#36816924)

How do you know they were dragging their feet on this? I bet that the google + app is more than twice as complicated as the average app on the iPhone, especially when you consider all the total bullshit fart apps that probably take minutes to approve or deny. Whats more it makes extensive use of a lot of features, it communicates externally, it uses the camera for stills and video and probably also the GPS system. These are sensitive areas and even a cursory check to make sure the app is doing what it claims to do is going to take time. There is a lot of ground to cover there that is unnecessary in some other apps. I'm sure apple has some automated tools that tell the people doing the approval what APIs are being used and ones that are not using many important APIs probably get approved a lot faster.

Basically, you have no idea if this is reasonable or not, you have simply decided that it was unreasonable so you can complain about it.

Re:!news (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 3 years ago | (#36818370)

How do you know they were dragging their feet on this? I bet that the google + app is more than twice as complicated as the average app on the iPhone, especially when you consider all the total bullshit fart apps that probably take minutes to approve or deny...

But what then would I complain about? I mean, come on! Steve Jobs is worse than Gates, right?

Re:!news (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | about 3 years ago | (#36817394)

They could access Google+ from the web browser. And as a BlackBerry user, that's my only option... but I prefer apps to websites, because apps can take advantage of many of the social networking abilities of the BlackBerry... they can tie into the camera and video camera apps, they can provide push notifications for various events and expose those events separately to allow other applications to set custom alerts, etc. Not sure how much of that applies to iOS... as it seems several places where Twitter is integrated in iOS5 are things that other mobile operating systems expose to a lot of various applications...

Re:!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816852)

I would still be fairly certain that even Microsoft would accept it to Windows Phone 7 app store.

Accept it? I think they'd have to beg for it.

Re:!news (0)

garcia (6573) | about 3 years ago | (#36816880)

Maybe it was simply that the app sucks. Plenty of sources are reporting that it's buggy (I wonder if that means it's better or worse than their Google Voice app which is terribly unstable). Maybe the reason for it taking so long was because Apple was deciding whether it was worth it to allow a buggy app to be released to the world.

Or, perhaps they wanted to wait for the application to be useful to more people as Google opened up the service to more and more people?

Re:!news (3, Informative)

TheClarkster (1130495) | about 3 years ago | (#36816956)

Actually, Apple accidentally published an older buggy version Google had submitted for testing. It was swapped out after about 2 hours with the release version.

Re:!news (1, Interesting)

Altus (1034) | about 3 years ago | (#36817046)

So perhaps part of this delay was Apple telling Google to get their shit together and publish a decent app before they would approve it.

Re:!news (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#36817344)

So perhaps part of this delay was Apple telling Google to get their shit together and publish a decent app before they would approve it.

Funny that they don't tell the thousands of half-assed game developers who sell buggy iPhone games to "get their shit together". Dinofarm Games is just the one of the worst offenders. When you buy a $5 iPhone game, you've got about a 1 in 8 chance that it doesn't have bugs that make it completely unplayable.

I notice the worst one I ever saw, a game called "Rebellion" that wouldn't even get to the start screen without crashing, has finally been taken off the app store after six months or so. I don't know if the developer took it down or Apple pulled the plug.

So I seriously doubt that making sure the app developer gets his "shit together" was any part of the equation in the matter of Apple's approval of a free Google+ app.

But perhaps Apple will notice your valiant willingness to fight for their honor (which is more than they've ever done). You never know, there might be a little something in it for you down the road. Probably not, though.

Re:!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817562)

You seem more than a little desperate, Altus. Why? It's not like Apple's stock is tanking or anything.

Re:!news (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36816964)

They updated it within 2 hours, saying the one initially up was a test version.

Maybe the reason for it taking so long was because Apple was deciding whether it was worth it to allow a buggy app to be released to the world.

They've never had that standard before with the app store, not sure why they would start all of a sudden.

Re:!news (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 3 years ago | (#36817206)

Actually they do. It's right in the developer guidelines that they verify if apps are stable (aren't crashing all the time and they do what they are supposed to do).

http://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guidelines.html [apple.com]

If your App looks like it was cobbled together in a few days, or you're trying to get your first practice App into the store to impress your friends, please brace yourself for rejection. We have lots of serious developers who don't want their quality Apps to be surrounded by amateur hour.

2.1
Apps that crash will be rejected
2.2
Apps that exhibit bugs will be rejected
2.3
Apps that do not perform as advertised by the developer will be rejected
2.4
Apps that include undocumented or hidden features inconsistent with the description of the app will be rejected

Re:!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817484)

You forgot the important one :

If you don't suck Steve Jobs' dick, your apps will be rejected.

Re:!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817532)

Does your mommy know your on the computer?

Re:!news (1)

Sancho (17056) | about 3 years ago | (#36817264)

Apple have rejected low quality apps for almost two years.

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20090807-apple-cleans-up-app-store-rejects-low-quality-apps.html [smartcompany.com.au]

And they openly admit to rejecting buggy apps:

Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.

From http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/ [apple.com]

Re:!news (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about 3 years ago | (#36818556)

The Google+ app also crashes immediately after signing in and clicking on Stream under iOS5. Apparently version 1.0.1.1809 was supposed to be more stable. Unfortunately that's the version that's also crashing for me under iOS 5.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20080767-501465.html [cbsnews.com]

Re:!news (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36816882)

Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps?

For their own mysterious/nefarious purposes. Why would they initially not allow users to change the background on the iphone? Apple likes control.

Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?

Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.

Re:!news (4, Insightful)

Altus (1034) | about 3 years ago | (#36817064)

You really believe that not being able to change the background initially was because of control and not simply because they had limited developer time and decided that time would be better spent on a different feature or on fixing bugs?

Re:!news (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36817138)

Yes. For one thing, it's not complicated. For another, it's one on a long list of standard features missing from the iphone that were introduced only after great delay.

Re:!news (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 years ago | (#36817356)

Do you understand how the development process works? "not complicated" and "not feature dependant" and "not a sales checkbox" means the feature is pushed to the bottom of the stack. It then only gets into a release build when the developers have completed all higher priority tasks. If enough potential customers complain, "not a sales checkbox" is removed, and the feature is bumped up on the list. If it was one on a long list of features missing, Apple was likely waiting to see which "standard" features people really wanted. Personally, a functional clipboard was much higher on my list than changing the background.

Apple is NOT an agile dev shop. This means that they are unlikely to pop background theming to the top of the queue because someone can hammer it out in a couple of days. They're more likely to have that person working on getting the interface interaction and cross-app stability issues addressed, and then off to other interface improvements on the next point release.

Re:!news (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36817574)

Do you understand how the development process works?

No, you're right, I realize I was speculating about what was going on when I don't even know how the industry works, let alone what was going on with that specific instance. Having said that, I'm skeptical that every feature that was left out and added back later was purely due to the development process and deadlines. I think some non-essential but standard features were saved for a later time so that apple could offer them later for more publicity.

Re:!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817294)

Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.

Not fast tracking a client for an online service still in a limited trial phase is the same as sabotage? You'll need to bring in the jews or the UN if your expecting to take your conspiracies to the next level.

Re:!news (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36817372)

Not fast tracking a client for an online service still in a limited trial phase is the same as sabotage?

Not actually what I said, was it?

Re:!news (2)

CapuchinSeven (2266542) | about 3 years ago | (#36817734)

...er, yes it was.

No major holidays, and not about Facebook (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 3 years ago | (#36816934)

Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?

The app was submitted ON the 4th. What "major holidays" were from July 4th to today?

It's not like Apple has any kind of relationship with Facebook. Microsoft does, and I would still be fairly certain that even Microsoft would accept it to Windows Phone 7 app store.

Who said it's about Apple's relationship with Facebook? It's about Apple's antagonistic relationship with Google (historically over patents and Google Voice):

http://google.com/search?q=apple+google+lawsuit

http://google.com/search?q=Apple+google+Voice

Re:No major holidays, and not about Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816996)

The app was submitted ON the 4th. What "major holidays" were from July 4th to today?

The 4th of July?

Re:No major holidays, and not about Facebook (1)

vijayiyer (728590) | about 3 years ago | (#36817150)

You mean like the Google maps app that comes with every iPhone? Or the fact that Google employees use either Linux or Macs, and not Windows PCs?
People seem to want a soap opera with every relationship. Each company may have issues with the direction of the other, due to vastly different business models, but "antagonistic" describes human relationships.

Re:!news (1)

Mia'cova (691309) | about 3 years ago | (#36816966)

It seems silly to expect larger v1 apps to be approved as quickly as the average shovelware. It's obviously going to contain a lot more new code and functionality than the average app.

Re:!news (1)

Chemisor (97276) | about 3 years ago | (#36817012)

Of course it is not news. It is merely an additional opportunity for us all to beg for invites. me@gmail.com pretty please? Oh, shucks! They are on to us...

Re:!news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817098)

Burr Apple they don't give back to opensource like Google with their opensource operating sys- oh wait nevermind!

Re:!new(s) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817158)

Just a wild guess, but the often hyped (but very real) rivalry between Google and Apple might have people assuming that Apple would play underhanded in the app approval process. Now, we know that's just silly; Apple only plays dirty when it comes copyright claims.

Re:!news (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 3 years ago | (#36817184)

Apple and Google do not like each other even though they share some board of directors. Google lost out on really valuable Nortel patents (which could have immunized Google against threats of lawsuits against Android) to a consortium of companies that was funded in large part by Apple. Also, don't forget that Apple is also suing HTC, Samsung, and other large manufacturers and importers of Android smartphones.

Perversely, Microsoft makes more money off Android than it does off Windows Phone 7. It's estimated that HTC pays Microsoft $5 in licensing fees for each Android handset it sells.

Mild censorship (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 3 years ago | (#36816826)

I understand Apple's philosophy of only allowing the best apps in their istore. However, what they don't realise is that exactly the same can be achieved with decent rating system if it's done relatively well (Slashdot, or download.com though not perfect, spring to mind). That way, people can choose the best, and we don't have a mild form of censorship. It also cuts out the maintenance.

Re:Mild censorship (1)

Swanktastic (109747) | about 3 years ago | (#36816912)

Aww that's just Apple being Apple. They understand how to make your user experience better than you do.

Re:Mild censorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816916)

Come on, that's not their philosophy. If that were the case, their store wouldn't be littered with utter garbage.

Re:Mild censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816928)

That's completely wrong. No rating system is going to let you know that the app silently uses its network permissions to send data it shouldn't be sending. Only reading the source code will let you do that.

Re:Mild censorship (1)

DeathElk (883654) | about 3 years ago | (#36817250)

Re:Mild censorship (1)

maschinetheist (1876332) | about 3 years ago | (#36817474)

Of course you think that everyone and their grandmother know how to use wireshark or tcpdump :|

Re:Mild censorship (2)

Cabriel (803429) | about 3 years ago | (#36816932)

This requires aging and use before an app can be determined to be good and/or malware-free. Many early adopters will get the short end of the stick which they will blame on Apple instead of their own idiocy.

Apple took the approach that made the most business sense because it also keeps up the reputation of their products, and *that* is their goal here. The same cannot be done with Slashdot's rating system.

Re:Mild censorship (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | about 3 years ago | (#36817082)

what they don't realise is that exactly the same can be achieved with decent rating system

Please cite an example of a competing app store which has been anywhere near as successful and generated $2.5bn in revenue for developers by using such a rating system.

To help Apple 'realise' I'll then drop them a note with the details to apple.com/feedback

Re:Mild censorship (1)

robmv (855035) | about 3 years ago | (#36817450)

Amazon, I hear that a lot of people buy applications there and better yet, they get something called a physical disk that they can resell later if they want

Re:Mild censorship (4, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 3 years ago | (#36817092)

I understand Apple's philosophy of only allowing the best apps in their istore.

Have you been on the appstore lately? Since its inception it's been filled to the brim with crap. Finding decent apps consists of downloading featured apps or looking at the top 100 list. Anything beyond that is probably junk. Make no mistake the app approval process is all about control of the content on the app store, not the quality.

Re:Mild censorship (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#36818132)

Have you been on the appstore lately? Since its inception it's been filled to the brim with crap. Finding decent apps consists of downloading featured apps or looking at the top 100 list. Anything beyond that is probably junk. Make no mistake the app approval process is all about control of the content on the app store, not the quality.

While I do not dispute your assertion in general, it implies that Apple's review process does nothing to improve matters. Which is very easily to verify if you just look at the free-for-all Android Market. And guess what? The amount of crap there is so overwhelming that App Store is a Japanese rock garden in comparison.

Re:Mild censorship (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 3 years ago | (#36818402)

Ok, so on either platform you can find good stuff in the top 100, and lots of garbage after that. What benefit does Apple bring?

This sounds like complaining that you ran a Google search and hit the next button to get to page 185, and you found a lot of irrelevant stuff.

I don't look at the garbage in the Android market, just like you don't look at the garbage in the App Store. The difference is that if I want I can install an alternative Email client or browser....

Re:Mild censorship (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#36818574)

The difference is that if you do a search on something you're interested in, e.g. "RPG", in App Store you'll find most results to be relevant, even if some might be crappy. In Android Market, you'll find a few actual hits interspersed between spam submissions (same app submitted N times, slightly renamed) and downright malware and porn.

Re:Mild censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817208)

Commercial driven rating systems always fail. Amazon, Netflix, Apple App Store, Android Marketplace, XBox Marketplace ... all of them are undermined by hundreds of millions of fake ratings and reviews.

iPhone ONLY. (3, Informative)

jaskelling (1927116) | about 3 years ago | (#36816842)

Does not support or work on iPod Touch or iPad. Makes this app completely worthless to me. The rest of Google's apps support them...why the *$#( doesn't this?

Re:iPhone ONLY. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816876)

Yeah, this took me forever to figure out. It was very frustrating.

Re:iPhone ONLY. (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 3 years ago | (#36816936)

Does not support or work on iPod Touch or iPad.

Maybe that's why it took so long.

I believe part of the criterion for approval is it must work on the iPad (using 1x and 2x mode for non-iPad, non-Universal apps) and possibly iPod Touch as well (unless it uses features that are iPhone only - e.g., SMS, dialer). Perhaps most of the 2 weeks (which I thought was the average time for app approval - has Apple gotten the turnaround down to 1 week already?) was spent dicking around with Google on why their app only works on iPhone and nothing else.

Or has Google decided they needed everyone's phone number?

Re:iPhone ONLY. (3, Insightful)

arkhan_jg (618674) | about 3 years ago | (#36816952)

There is a separate ipad app, it's still awaiting approval by apple
.

Re:iPhone ONLY. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36816994)

It -is- still in beta. Real question is why has facebook still not put out an ipad app? The iphone app scaled up is just plain ugly.

Re:iPhone ONLY. (1)

ethergear (1130483) | about 3 years ago | (#36817086)

Same here. I was really looking forward to that app too.

Re:iPhone ONLY. (1)

Trolan (42526) | about 3 years ago | (#36817110)

Checking the app's plist, it's iPhone only because Google's developer on it decided that it would require the following:
- gps (includes GSM/CDMA iPads)
- location-services (all devices since wifi can give you some form of a fix)
- sms (iPhone)
- telephony (iPhone)
- wifi (all devices)

As the only items which match all of it are iPhones, that's all it'll install on. Now why they decided it required telephone and sms, and didn't just gracefully downgrade when they're lacking, I have no idea. It's kind of sloppy.

Re:iPhone ONLY. (1)

Threni (635302) | about 3 years ago | (#36817224)

Perhaps they don't want G+ sullied with a sucky experience on inferior platforms? Those requirements are hardly cutting edge, are they?

Re:iPhone ONLY. (1)

Trolan (42526) | about 3 years ago | (#36817300)

I might understand it if G+ on the web had any use for sms or telephony... but it doesn't. It'd be a pretty easy check to not enable certain functionality and then it's no diff from the website. And if they're doing an iPod/iPad version anyway, they won't have those features available either.

Re:iPhone ONLY. (3, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 3 years ago | (#36817318)

And yet my computer does not have all of those and they still allow me on G+.

Re:iPhone ONLY. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 years ago | (#36818142)

You can perfectly well just use the mobile web app from Mobile Safari. So far as I can see, the only reason to get an app is to have push notifications (it does have them, I hope?).

Re:iPhone ONLY. (1)

earls (1367951) | about 3 years ago | (#36817164)

Apple just hasn't approved that functionality yet.

Re:iPhone ONLY. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817400)

Have you tried it on the iPad browser? The only quirk I've noticed is the find people screen, appears to be expecting you to use a mouse wheel to scroll... But you can do that with 2 fingers on iOS, though most people don't know that.

Other then that, works great. Probably why they haven't rushed an iPad version, which is good because iPad apps with lots of attention can be quite nice.

Re:iPhone ONLY. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817808)

Remind me, you had a full featured browser?

My HP Touchpad works just fine in the web.

Summer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816860)

I don't know how big of a factor it is in the US, but July is prime vacation time here in Sweden, probably 70+% of the office I work at is on vacation.. It wouldn't surprise me if something like that cause the delay, probably doesn't have anything to do with policy, Apple doesn't have a competing social network after al...

Unclear? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816870)

"It's unclear whether Google has created an iPad-specific app."

Journalism at its best. What's so hard about going into the app store, and searching for it in iPad apps?

"It's unclear whether the pope is Catholic" might well be an equivalent question.

Re:Unclear? (1)

EboMike (236714) | about 3 years ago | (#36816938)

"Has created" != "has been published on the store". Particularly because the most newsworthy part of the article is that it took longer than normal to get the app approved, so a search in the apps won't tell you whether or not Google has *created* an iPad-specific version that is currently going through the approval process.

iPhone-only (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | about 3 years ago | (#36816874)

Boo-urns, no iPad/iPod Touch version. Why?

Re:iPhone-only (1)

Trolan (42526) | about 3 years ago | (#36817132)

Because the Google dev decided that they absolutely needed sms and telephony, and the app shouldn't work if those two items weren't there. At least they specified such in the proper way, so it'll at least tell you at install-time that you're SOL instead of bombing out randomly.

Approval time is around 2 weeks for all right now (5, Insightful)

cstromme (1401527) | about 3 years ago | (#36816886)

We've had several apps awaiting approval the last weeks, and it all seems to average out to around 10-20 days. So it's not some special delay for Google. My guess is that they're swamped with updates for Mac OS apps before Lion hits tomorrow.

So? (3, Informative)

Lysander7 (2085382) | about 3 years ago | (#36816894)

I loathe Apple. There's been evidence time and again of their questionable (to put it mildly) business tactics. However, I fail to see why this matters in any way whatsoever. In the end, Apple still approved it. Sure, they took a while. Perhaps there was a reason? They could just pull a Facebook and try to impede G+ by not allowing it at all (though in the end it wouldn't do much). ...or we can all be outraged in typical /. fashion at how evil this corporation is, regardless how pedantic the reason might be.

Yeah, let's go with that.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817262)

My experience is the larger more complex apps take more time to approve. I've had a simple soundboard app (and other similar ones) approved in a matter of days, but I also helped develop an app to aid bariatric surgery patients' recovery and weight loss; That one was big, complex, and took almost a month to approve in the same time I saw a little duck-hunt style game that one of the other developers on the project wrote, approved in a week.

Google+ is not a simple little app, and falling outside the 'average' is a pointless metric when the app itself falls outside the average.

Average download time for a movie on my internet connection is 30 minutes, but if I download 11 hours of Lord of the Rings and find it takes several hours, it's not evidence of my ISP throttling or discriminating against Peter Jackson.

Re:So? (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 3 years ago | (#36817306)

So you're saying Google, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft and others are all really nice people who play fair with others?

Google's Android is the main competitor to iOS, they are entitled to closely examine Google+ just in case they have slipped in something that would hurt Apple's own business.

Perhaps if Apple, Google and Microsoft all stuck to just building OSes and let everyone else do the software then things would be fairer.

Re:So? (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | about 3 years ago | (#36817828)

just in case they have slipped in something that would hurt Apple's own business.

Personally, I don't think it's possible to hurt Apple's business. They have a near religious following that can see no wrong in Apple or their tactics. If Apples products started exploding and removing people's appendages in the process, these same amputee's would go right back to Apple to get a replacement, and pay to dollar for it in the process, just so they could log back onto /. to defend Apple's honor.

I've been around a long time, but I don't recall ever seeing anything like it. Certainly, I like Apple's products, though I think they're overpriced and too locked down, but whatever floats your boat. I like Windows 7, though it's got it's share of quirks and prickly thorns and I'm no fan of MS's business tactics. I REALLY like Linux and the whole FOSS movement, but I'm first to admit there's a lot that needs to be done with it to make it as user friendly as Windows or OS/X. My point is, I can like a product or company, but still be critical of it because criticism and competition is what forces innovation. Patting your favorite company on the back does nothing to make them want to invest more time or money. Threatening to choose a competitor's product does.

Is it any suprise this is from"Android Power" blog (4, Insightful)

joeflies (529536) | about 3 years ago | (#36816922)

the author clearly states his bias - the name of the blog is called "Android Power". His bio states he's out to irk apple fans.

there is no information in the article whether the delay is Apple's fault or Google's fault. Yes, you can have delays in the approval process of your own doing, not because of a conspiracy that Apple caused.

And all in all, google+ is not even a service that's available to the majority of people. It's in limited beta, meaning that the affected user base who didn't have access to the "delayed" client is small.

Re:Is it any suprise this is from"Android Power" b (1)

simmonsjeffreya (2259752) | about 3 years ago | (#36818444)

Well, just to give you an idea, there are already over 10M G+ users. [wired.co.uk] While I wouldn't put them at the level of FaceBook or Twitter, that is quite the userbase, built in a matter of weeks. There have already been predictions of 20M by next weekend, 100M+ by years end. I wouldn't call the user base small at all, based on these figures and predictions. Hell, my parents are already on Google+, while joining FB just this year.

I'm fed up with these conspiracy theories (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36816926)

Everytime something like this happens the open source fanbois cry about anti-trust and shit. Fucking faggots are just upset that they can't afford a real computer.

Re:I'm fed up with these conspiracy theories (1)

tycoex (1832784) | about 3 years ago | (#36817068)

By real computer I assume you mean overpriced POS.

Unless you are going to argue that a $1,000 custom-built gaming pc isn't a real computer.

Re:I'm fed up with these conspiracy theories (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817324)

Get back to your moms basement and fiddle with your clock speed while I fiddle with this hot blonde student I picked up at Starbucks whilst surfing on my Mac Book Pro.

Re:I'm fed up with these conspiracy theories (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817540)

Enjoy your hot blonde student. I'm sure he can make you forget the shame of being one of Steve's good little lemmings. Maybe one day's you'll be able to think for yourself. Nah - not a chance.

Apple Finally Approves Google+ App For iPhone (1)

brim4brim (2343300) | about 3 years ago | (#36816990)

2 people died during the wait... See then it would be news :P

Slashdot using trolling titles now? (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | about 3 years ago | (#36817022)

Slashdot must be hard up on money or something to post such an incendiary topic title?

2 weeks from submissions to Apple to release is hardly worthy of a "FINALLY", 2 weeks is about the normal lenth of time for new app review by Apple.

stability? (1)

chaim79 (898507) | about 3 years ago | (#36817172)

Maybe it took so long to get through because the Apple people kept having it crash on them.

I experienced my first crash using the Google+ app for 2 min... I mean... I know Google is the "Beta" Company but come on now! Between the few friends I have on Google+ with iPhones, and myself, I think we've racked up maybe 10 to 15 crashes on the first afternoon of use. We've also experienced issues with it properly updating comments and such.

Hopefully they will get crackin and improve the stability quickly.

Re:stability? (1)

creativeHavoc (1052138) | about 3 years ago | (#36817488)

If you were one of the first to get it, Apple released an early buggy version for the first 2 hours roughly. There was a better version available, but not used for the market until 2 hours after launch.

Suggestion was to delete and reinstall.

Re:stability? (1)

JanneM (7445) | about 3 years ago | (#36817872)

From the developers [google.com] :

We discovered an issue with the version of the iPhone Google+ App that was on the App Store. When we launched, the App Store started serving a previous test version of the App which didn't have the stability and fixes that the latest version had. It started serving the correct version a little later. If you downloaded within the first 1 hour 40 mins, you may have downloaded the older test version.

To check:
- Click on the gear icon on the top left of your App's homescreen and look right above the Help button, the version number of the App should be: 1.0.1.1809

- If that is not the version number, then please uninstall and reinstall by clicking on the link below: itunes.apple.com [apple.com]

Oh, well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36817226)

I was a nice social network we used to have before they let the riff-raff in.

NO support for my touch though WTF (1)

KowboyKrash (2020632) | about 3 years ago | (#36817258)

ok to be fair i am using a gen 2 mc model but i am runing ios 4.2.1 so again I say WTF, I really like google+ but since i mainly use my touch for facebook linkedin twitter and wordpress, i really don't want to have to use the mobile web page all the time. but I guess I am just whining.

Canada? (1)

digitallife (805599) | about 3 years ago | (#36818020)

Not available on the Canadian app store. Is it only in the US?
This is ridiculous.

no ipad app? (1)

bobm3 (899166) | about 3 years ago | (#36818316)

has google submitted a ipad app?

oh the excitement ! (1)

swell (195815) | about 3 years ago | (#36818416)

So I was looking at the program on my iPhone and ready to download it when it suddenly disappeared from the store. That was about 3 hours ago when 400 users said it seemed OK.

Now it's back at the store and I'm downloading it. About 900 users gave it the same average (3 of 5 stars).

I have no idea what I'll do with it, but I suppose it's a bit of history that I can tell the grandchildren I was a part of. Damn shame I missed Woodstock.

Woohoo, it's here! And it wants a username and password and god knows what else. Do I really want this? I can still tell people that I had it on that first day on the iPhone, without having to actually use it.

OK, you're probably thinking I'm silly. Well f you. You probably do and think very similar things.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>