Palm Rejects First App
osnews.com
osnews.com
So Palm gets to use private APIs for its apps, but 3rd party devs get jilted for it. Doesn't seem like a balanced policy to me. Seems like Palm could use this policy to block any type of feature it wants.
1) The APIs are in flux. Since Palm controls both APIs and the player, it can ensure that every update of the APIs will not break user expeirence.
2) Palm rejected the app from the palm store. Not banned the app from being used on webOS. In other words if I want to I can still install it, just not via. the app store. This is a huge difference from "apple app store or hack the firmware".
3) Palm immediately responded with details on how to fix this rejection.
4) The response time was quick.
5) Should we go on? You missing the point of the article.
1) The APIs are in flux. Since Palm controls both APIs and the player, it can ensure that every update of the APIs will not break user experience.
API changes have traditionally been managed through communication through developer documentation. Palm saying "trust us to communicate internally (between our WebOS team and our App teams) better than we communicate to our 3rd party developers" tells you the following: (A) - Palm reserves the right to communicate less effectively to its 3rd party devs than to its internal app devs. Also, Palm internal apps get the ability to test against new WebOS updates prior to general distribution, but 3rd party devs might not. (B) - Palm reserves the right to make certain APIs private which can possibly be used as a competitive advantage.
2) Palm rejected the app from the palm store. Not banned the app from being used on webOS. In other words if I want to I can still install it, just not via. the app store. This is a huge difference from "apple app store or hack the firmware".
I never said Palm was evil and their device was locked down. Don't infer into my posts. If I meant to compare Palm to Apple, I would have.
3) Palm immediately responded with details on how to fix this rejection.
I never said Palm behaved badly in its rejection process. Don't infer into my posts. If I meant to compare Palm to Apple, I would have.
4) The response time was quick.
I never said Palm responded in an untimely manner in its rejection process. Don't infer into my posts. If I meant to compare Palm to Apple, I would have.
5) Should we go on? You missing the point of the article.
No need to go on. There was also no need to infer what you have into my original post either.
That said, yes. Palm will have private APIs and privilege its own developers first. Consider the internal app team the alpha API users. This isn't a bad thing! As a customer, I'm more than willing to let the internal developers and people willing to hack into the internal APIs to find the problems with the API first, so that something sub-optimal doesn't become set in stone too early.
Public APIs have a way of sticking around, and I like to see companies get it right. Further, Palm's clearly communicating its stance.
I'm not seeing why it's a bad thing.
1 - beginning with "You miss the point" and ends with a derogatory "Should we go on? You missing the point of the article"
2 - 4 out of 5 of their points are Apple vs. Palm comparisons, completely immaterial to my original post.
...that somehow I'm the one flaming?
Perhaps the point count to GandMasterBirt's post is attributable to others also inferring wildly into a post? Is that decent behavior? Does it make the content on HN better or worse?
[EDIT] keep in mind that communities like slashdot once had a higher signal to noise ratio. People, like me for instance, don't go their anymore, because its all too common for rational discussion to be drowned out in a sea of fanboyism and offensive behavior.
Such as this lame mini-flamewar brewing here?
Time to just let it go guys.
A point by point reply isn't a typical HN response, shelve it for a more appropriate response in future. You'll not only make your point much better, but you'll come across better too. This isn't reddit or digg, people like civility here and your response doesn't come across as such.
IMO you're taking an anonymous comment way too seriously, and you repeat yourself repeatedly. Quite frankly, you come off as an ass, and it certainly isn't suitable to HN. You're (IMO) on the verge of flaming, in fact you're probably beyond it but you don't appear to make a habit of these responses so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt; you're (usually) a good commenter and we don't need to have you turning into a troll on us trying to start flame-wars.
It's been fun watching the apps I've used improve before they get into the app store. Homebrew is the developer's dream because there's no bureaucracy between you and the customer. You can use an agile development cycle of releasing the app widely, getting feedback, improving, etc., and the rapid improvements I've seen have been validation of that.
I really don't know why Apple doesn't do this. They're only hurting their developers, and therefore themselves, in the long run.
Plus, Palm is allowing people to install it on their own (as the article notes). By allowing it to live just not in the App Catalogue, it means that power users can install it and understand that it might break with an OS upgrade and they'll have to reinstall and when Palm finalizes the API, hopefully it will be in the app catalogue.
As long as a company allows me to install whatever I want, it doesn't matter so much whether I download it from their App Store or on my own. Sure, the App Store has a lot of benefits, but it isn't the same as how Apple's been killing off stuff. Sure, distribution won't be as good for the developer, but it's still alive.
However, this is something to watch. If I were working at Palm, I would consider it part of my job to protect certain apps such as the music player as it clearly has potential to be a vector into additional revenue.
But in these cases (usage of private API's) Apple is very clear as to the nature (and therefore resolution) of rejection, so this point in the article invalid.
There are a few good points, but in general, most of the "lessons" Apple can supposedly learn from Palm only point out the lack of familiarity the author has with Apple's current process.
It would be stupid for Palm to allow people to use the private/internal APIs, so your "doesn't seem like a balanced policy" is just wrong.