Comments on: Banned iPhone Apps: The Podcaster Situation

By: onlydarksets

onlydarksets — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:22:49 +0000

I think your comments on WHY Apple is doing this are pretty insightful and accurate. Your analysis of how they are JUSTIFIEID by the TOS are pretty weak. Specifically, the house of cards is built on this quote of yours:

“However, while some dismiss Podcaster’s content distribution as neither features nor functionality, he seems to be unaware that the entire point of Podcaster is to download podcasts rather than stream them in realtime. That is a feature provided through a distribution mechanism that is other than iTunes.”

That’s not what the TOS says, though. The TOS says you can’t ADD NEW FEATURES using a distribution method outside of iTunes. That’s very different than an EXISTING FEATURE going outside of iTunes to access content.

By: roz

roz — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:23:16 +0000

@LunaticSX

Only using one app for podcasts does not seem to me to be an onerously technical solution. I have not used MobileCast or Podcast so I really can’t speak to the quality or user experience there. Is it potentially confusing? Yes. Is some wireless support for downloading podcasts better than nothing? Also, yes.

Really the issue to me seems like if you have a podcast app you really want it to be a background app so that when you get to a wifi network the app could check for new podcasts and download them in the background. Of course, currently only an Apple is a allowed to do background tasks so between integration with iTunes and background processing, the Apple solution will have a big advantage of course.

Maybe Apple did not want Podcaster to be released because it would have infuriated developers even more to see Apple allowing its app to work in the background while the 3rd party app does not get that right. That would indeed make developers angry and might spur litigation.

By: Bush League - The Apple Touch

Bush League - The Apple Touch — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:21:53 +0000

[...] Roughly Drafted tries to milk page views. [...]

By: LunaticSX

LunaticSX — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:19:02 +0000

@roz

Ok, I currently use the jailbreak app MobileCast to download my podcasts. As a result, the podcasts I download through MobileCast and the ones I download through iTunes are not in synch. Until I completely turned off synching of podcasts through iTunes, I also wound up with duplicate podcast data files on my iPhone, taking up valuable storage space. Luckily, I’m a technical person, so I was not confused by these problems, and I could figure out how to deal with them (viz. stop synching podcasts through iTunes).

I would not wish this amount of user confusion onto the general public, who are on average much less technical than I–ESPECIALLY for an Apple device that should “just work.”

Podcaster has these same intrinsic problems as MobileCast.

By: roz

roz — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:53:02 +0000

@LunaticSX:

“@roz“User confusion is another way of saying competition.”

I don’t know about you, but I’m very much in favor of competition, and as much or moreso opposed to user confusion.”

Yeah probably not the best way for me to put it. I only meant that some user confusion, call it choice, is inherent in competition. If a podcast app were allowed and then Apple would release a podcast feature later this would mean there are two ways to do something. One can call that confusing, or its just how competition works – users get to decide what app to use for a given task – the same way they do with a lot of apps in the App store.

Certainly I can see the Apple app winning in the end. Daniel might say, then why do we need the 3rd party app? My answer is that, first, the 3rd party app puts pressure on Apple to deliver. Second, we learn a lot from all these apps along the way, the UI, the functions, the cool features and the end result, the winning app, is usually better from all the experimentation that goes on. I know when I have done development I look at all the competition and try to craft a best of breed solution, trying to learn, even from apps I don’t like. That is why IMHO you want to give developer the freedom to make attempts at app spaces that Apple may rule in the end. If they are willing to try, and they get some warning of where Apple is headed, let them try.

By: kaspesla

kaspesla — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:46:50 +0000

Funny thing about the iPhone SDK agreement: Disclosing the terms of the agreement is also prohibited by the agreement. ;) Honestly. Oh no! By saying that I’ve also violated the agreement! Oh no! By saying that I’ve also violated the agreement. Oh no! By saying that I’ve also violated the agreement. …

By: masternav

masternav — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:30:32 +0000

jerome, that is one of the more silly comparisons I’ve read. A general contractor is there to manage all aspects of the construction, to ensure that subcontractors do the job right, and don’t compromise the design or infrastructure. A smart builder works with the general contractor to ensure that any changes are acceptable with the parameters agreed to, or to re-design the structure to accept the changes. It is your house, but it is the general contractor’s mandate to ensure that the house you paid for is the house that was designed and is functional as a house, without huge gaping holes where stairs should be, or fires sarting in walls where sub-standard wiring is. That my friend is the role and responsibility of the general contractor. Apple’s mandate is to provide a framework in which developers can reasonably write apps that will run on the iPhone, and reflect Apple’s intended use of it. It would be nice if Apple provided the dev with a detailed analysis of why exactly the app is unacceptable, but a real dev would understand the “lay of the land” and realize that, without being hand-held throught the explanation.

By: jerome_from_munich

jerome_from_munich — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:02:14 +0000

A more accurate description would be:
Big carpentor contractor is building a house for me. If I want to subcontract part of the job, say because I want air conditioning installed, big contractor can say at any time that I am not allowed to have that installed in my house because it strains the power network or whatever suits them.
It’s not Apple’s phone, it’s yours. Yet Apple decides what you do with it and where you buy the parts.

By: Danthemason

Danthemason — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:27:52 +0000

So this big carpenter contractor is building himself a house. He subcontracts as a part of his business and he has these subs working on the house largely unsupervised but there are plans. When one sub has “a better idea” and ignores the plans to implement his vision, the new structure may not keep out the rain. It seems to me most of the whiny developers need a course in blueprint reading.

By: LunaticSX

LunaticSX — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:19:59 +0000

Daniel, as long as you were re-posting the majority of this article, it’s too bad you neglected to edit out “in the background” from “Podcaster is designed to queue up huge podcast data files and truck them over the network nonstop in the background.”

Also, you could perhaps address why it is that Apple didn’t explicitly state that violation of section 3.3.3 of the SDK agreement was the reason Podcaster wasn’t approved in their e-mail to the developer, instead of (or in addition to) the reason of “Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes.”