“I find it hilarious too that whenever Apple enters a new market suddenly everyone else in that market becomes the enemy ….”
The enemy?? Do you just dislike Apple or does this comment apply to any company selling a product??

The ” that Diliger and all those who are defending Apple over this clearly can’t grasp what people are complaining actually about. It’s not that Apple is rejecting Applications. It’s that Apple is not giving any guidelines as to what it might reject”

Er, it is Apples store, right. ??? And while I appreciate that anyone can have an opinion, that does not mean the store owner needs to kiss your *ss, does it. ??

Now I read the iPad article , I believe it was this site… and thought that it came from an open and objective mind. But this article seems to be upset that Apple is not running its business to suit the author.

Just a thought,
en
PS, I do not always like what Apple does…. but overall, I like them much more than I do .. say Microsoft.

Well piracy issues is just one example. Of course not the uploading with the iPhone as you mentioned. Its the downloading to the iphone functionality which to me is the issue at hand. Essentially anything that allows you to download unverified files from the internet onto the iPhone Apple will most definitely not allow.

Look at it this way if you only use itunes to load files onto your iPhone when anything goes wrong who do you call? Apple of course.

But if you use 10 different apps to download files onto your iPhone and you get a virus who are you going to call then? Gostbusters???

I just feel I have address one “reason” that those seeking to defend Apple’s already explained action have raised to defend the indefensible, and that is that Podcaster somehow opens up a pandora’s box of piracy.

How, as what am I to do with the track once it’s downloaded? Play it? I can’t transfer it, I can’t sync it back to iTunes, I can do nothing with it, so can you explain how this is some backdoor to Napster v1 (as you put it) when it would be a whole lot easier to enter said URL into iTunes or Safari and download the file into an infrastructure I could actually distribute through, ie email, FTP, BT, whatever on a proper computer?

This loophole to so-called Napster 1 Armageddon exists now, on a helluva lot more devices (ie computers) than the at most <10million iPhones, and I’ve yet to hear of any burgeoning Podcast piracy rings.

Also if you are looking for an approved App that does store content (not just streaming as the apologists plead) and content that does make apple revenue ie Music, unlike Podcasts, look no further than one of the poster boys of the iTunes App Store, – Tap Tap Revenge, thanks to the “legitimate” version not being able to use your iTunes library, like the more compelling jailbreak version did, this App allows you to download your choice of tracks from their server.

Free music – stored on my iPhone!!

Maybe if Apple had said that it was a security risk then you would see ‘Apple says the iPhone is insecure’ all over the blogosphere today.

Whatever it may be I can understand why they would do something like this.

As for the bandwidth and cuing of downloads you can check out how podcaster works here :
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/podcaster_developer_uses_little_known_ad_hoc_to_distribute_banned_app.php

And even then it still doesn’t hide the fact that A, This has nothing to do with the clause in the SDK agreement that dan says it does. If it did Apple would say so. Why would they want to stir this hornets nest when all they would have had to say is this violates the agreement.

and B, He’s implying that developers are out to somehow screw apple and thats just complete bullshit.

And C. He keeps going on about the “prior written agreement” when that is one of the things people want to be able to do and one of the core fundamental points of the arguments that all the developers have been arguing about.

Developers don’t have it in for Apple. They want to be able to develop for the store as much as anyone but no full time developer is going to put months of work into developing an App when it might get pulled at the last minute by Apple for a completely arbitrary reason. It’s a completely fair and legitimate argument and Dilger has gone out of his way to portray the developers as the villains and Apple as the victim, while at the same time contradicting himself and saying that Apple is a business and you have to expect business tactics. It’s a straw man argument and it’s complete bull.

Apple is a multi billion dollar company. The idea that they need defending is bullshit. The idea that everything they do is solely for the good of their customers is nonsense. The idea that when they come out and do something in plain sight that is questionable that they must have a secret hidden noble reason for doing it is nonsense. Apple has to compete in the world like every other company and they’ll do whatever it takes. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the right ones, in fact that’s usually the case.

As for the bandwith issue, if that were the case, as gruber pointed out they would have requested he limit it to wifi. Pelenty of other developers have recieved “notes” from Apple requesting things to be changed before re-submitting. Podcaster got a flat out rejection.

I would also like to point out that two of the things dilger said about that are complete bull. First of all podcasts are not multi-gigabyte. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one over a gig. The largest I’ve seen is the Apple keynote which is 700mb.

He also clams that podcaster cues multiple large files and downloads away in the background, but this is bull because it’s simply not possible with the SDK. once you quit out of it any downloading would be stopped.

Again, Apple said why they rejected it. Why people have to make a conspiracy out of this is beyond me.

And what do you have to say about the bandwidth issue?

Look if Apple allows Podcaster on the iPhone then its essentially means that anyone can just actually download any old podcast onto the iphone. Not just stream it but actually download the file and run it.

Even though I don’t have an iPhone, I’m pretty sure none of the radio apps, utube, movie app, etc allow you to download the actual music or movie file onto the iPhone. Streaming yes… download no.

Allowing something like Podcaster onto the iPhone means that you are allowing something like a p2p client onto the iPhone. Bypassing iTunes and providing competition to Apple is one thing but it also means that all someone needs to illegally share music or any other file for that matter, is to put it up online as a podcast and it gets downloaded via Podcaster onto your iPhone.

Look Apple doesn’t store all podcasts on the itunes server. You subscribe to podcasts from thousands of websites all over the internet. Allowing podcaster on the iPhone is like opening pandora’s box. Think Napster ver 1.

Do you think that any of the music labels or movie studios for that matter will allow any of their content onto iTunes if this happens???

That clause he continually refers to is specifically there to prevent trial versions of Apps. It has absolutely nothing to do with Downloading content onto the phone. Daniel Saying it is doesn’t make it so.

In fact this post is even more full of crap then his first one.

Oh, and how do I know that’s what the clause refers to?

I asked.

Daniel Eran was right, and you were wrong. Here’s why…

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/09/16/banned-iphone-apps-and-the-john-gruber-podcaster-defense/

He he.