Does apple not see how this will end up badly for them?
Apple, you're scaring off talented developers; soon the only people who will be left are people who can afford to have gobs and gobs of apps rejected.
Apple, you're scaring off talented developers; soon the only people who will be left are people who can afford to have gobs and gobs of apps rejected.
We'll see how it ends up.
Now, you may disagree with the way that they're going about doing that, but from what I understand, tools like Visual Studio really are best of breed. I don't use IDEs or Windows, so I wouldn't know, but that's just what I hear.
I'd say they're about neck and neck.
Android - Not the 1st choice of the greedy, too many compatibility issues, very open, makes the right moves for mindshare.
By this analysis, Android seems to be on a winning trajectory in the long run.
Apple actually makes money with their mobile products. Not sure do or will do.
The Android Market policy is only great if you are from one of the few countries that can publish app on it. It amazes me that this aspect is always left out while discussing the topic.
Though I know it really doesn't solve the problem the fact that you aren't completely locked out of legitimate phones is nice.
Supported locations for distributing applications: http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/bin/answer.py?hl...
Supported locations for merchants: http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/bin/answer.py?an...
Unless you are arguing about freedom to put apps on your own device. That's a different discussion
While I understand that currency power can vary quite a bit and have a huge effect here (and I don't know if that affects you), I would say it's generally not a big deal compared to other costs.
But another interesting point is there has been suggestions that the subscription fee be much higher, rather than remove it. I am supportive of this. The reasoning behind this is it helps to filter off a certain class of developers that tends to pollute the app store. Part of it is due to the poor discovery facilities of the app store, but making it more exclusive does have it's benefits, and drawbacks, naturally.
I am starting out using Android (getting an HTC Incredible soon as well). If I can get things working well with Android and want to start selling apps and/or start a software company for mobile phones -- I will start out with Android. If things go well enough that I am capable of pursuing another platform as well, then I would do the iPhone next but only after Android success. If I were to fail here, I would stick with Android because of the flexibility and I believe there are more opportunities there. I don't see Apple's ecosystem allowing business software to truly thrive on iPhone/iPad in comparison to Android and others -- I also believe this is intentional.
Android is still ultrafragmented, and none of the tablets are out yet (nor will necessarily be that good when they come).
Half the iPad development I'm seeing looked for is for B2B apps, not consumer apps.
Basically this allows side loading of business apps to approved business of a large (500+) size. I'm not sure if the apps need to be approved by apple still, but I'm guessing they would.
Then again, there are a LARGE subset of technophobic doctors who love apple and will clamor for that instead.
I won't be at all surprised if the Android tablets have a similar look & feel to the iPad, but intended for specialized work as opposed to media consumption. I imagine the customization capability of an Android (or other OS) tablet would allow for simple, specialized devices that succeed.
I could be entirely wrong about Apple's paradigm and the resultant prospects. I disagree with many of Apple's decisions, but no one can deny their success over the past few years (though their stock is overvalued right now imho).
Not associated with any of these companies:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gotomeeting/id363452804?mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/logmein-ignition/id299616801?...
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ac-7-pro-control-surface/id36...
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/citrix-receiver-for-ipad/id36...
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lexi-complete/id295363885?mt=...
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/webex-for-ipad/id364031971?mt...
It sounds to me like these developers didn't read the app store guidelines. Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively. They made an app that was too much like a desktop and got rejected. That seems entirely reasonable.
It sounds to me like these developers didn't read the app store guidelines.
I'm getting really sick of that defense for Apple. How exactly do you logically go from "Don't make apps that do what Apple devices can already do natively" to "Thou shalt not make a cool picture frame app"?
Yes, it's entirely the app developers' fault, and Apple can never be mistaken. The allmighty App Store Guidelines CLEARLY spell out for developers what they can and cannot do. They are immutable, all-encompassing, never vague, and impossible to misinterpret. If only developers would READ, we would never see any of these stories.
Argh.
(Have I just been trolled? On HN?)
When you make your picture frame app look like a desktop.
I feel sorry for the guys, because it was certainly unintended. The path they took to adding value to their picture frame app unfortunately shifted the gestalt from picture frame to desktop, and when you're moving in that direction, you might fail to notice the shift. But it is entirely reasonable for Apple to disallow apps that can confuse the UI hierarchy for the user. Obviously, none of us on this site are going to be confused by it, but they have to take a much broader demographic of users into account.
Can you actually point me to anything in the existing developer agreements or interface guidelines that disallows this? I just looked, and I haven't been able to find anything - but it's not exactly hard to miss something.
"As you design your application, be aware of the metaphors that exist in iPhone OS and don't redefine them."
I wasn't aware of this specific guideline/rule until just now, having looked for it in response to your question. But I do think it's an easily intuited rule, given a basic understanding of usability. Still, I don't think these guys knowingly violated the rule. It's a weird case.
Even while I think it's reasonable for Apple to reject the app on these grounds, they could certainly do a better job clarifying how rules are applied and reduce developer risk. The most effective way would just be to maintain a listing of all rejections and the rationale behind them.
For that matter, where does it say anything about desktops?
It's about as useful as a Rorschach test, or staring at the clouds to understand the shape of Apple's intentions.
Yes, again, Apple's platform means Apple's rules - developers have little to no bargaining power. I just don't want to pretend that the rules aren't completely unpredictable at times.
Edit: I've run afoul of HIG violations before - it's usually relatively minor stuff that can be fixed and should get approved once it's resubmitted. Even "redefining a metaphor" can usually be fixed by changing to more standard controls. It doesn't sound like there's any UI change these guys can make to their app to make it acceptable.
A desktop with a customizable background and widgets. Seriously, if you take a screenshot of that app and go around showing it to your friends, do you think their first impression is going to be, oh, it's a picture frame with widgets?
> For that matter, where does it say anything about desktops?
The "desktop" is a metaphor. You don't have an actual, literal desktop on your computer.
Actually, yes, especially if they're less tech-savvy (part of the assumption underlying this whole discussion is that Apple is trying to protect users from getting confused). It doesn't look like you can interact with it much - you certainly can't put icons on it and use it to launch programs, or have it run in the background and become visible when you close everything else. But that's not even really my point.
>The "desktop" is a metaphor. You don't have an actual, literal desktop on your computer.
Thanks, I managed to get that far on my own. My point is that I still don't see anywhere in the agreements that you can't make an app that looks, if you squint hard enough, like a desktop.
This isn't really going anywhere, and I don't want to spam this thread more than I already have. If you want to continue this discussion, there's some contact info in my profile.
Also, this is the sort of issue we can obstinately disagree over without consulting data, but I really doubt that even non-tech savvy users are going to identify a screenshot of this app as a picture frame. I've never seen a picture frame with a bunch of widgets on it, at least until I saw this app. I'd consider it far more likely that non-tech savvy users have seen a computer desktop with widgets on it and a picture for a background.
The app was accepted, and for sale in the store, and only then did it get pulled - so says the article. Not even the unnamed app store reviewers spotted that this app went against the guidlines.