Apple has finally published some rules for applications submitted to the iTunes store, and it seems that down in Cupertino they're just as bored of flatulence-themed applications as the rest of us. The guidelines, which are now available to Apple developers, lay out the rules by which apps are rejected, or accepted. They also …
Please, please, please, don't remove Opera, Apple. I prefer it to Safari on the iPhone.
You just gave them the very excuse they needed. Congratulations !
I quote : "duplicate apps already in the App Store"
whoooah. so once one single App that does a function (no matter how badly) is on the store then its game over for any competitive product? that just sucks massively. boo Apple, boo.
In the country that relentlessly describes competition as the prime benefit of the market, arbitrarily deciding that only one app can be allowed to do one thing is just begging for a lawsuit to lose.
The App Store is still under the jurisdiction of the law and Apple has no right to keep several file explorers, different MP3 players or whatnot to have a go.
I strongly suspect that this particular clause will be removed quickly, either voluntarily or by force.
Not that I care anyway, I'm not a customer, but this clause seems clearly illegal to me.
I want to know what kind of fanatic Apple turd-gobbler would give the above post a thumbs down. Seriously.
I did wonder about that,
is there going to be mass bannings in the near future? You would have to imagine that this wont be applied retroactively or the app store is about to become a LOT leaner.
The one that has actually...
read the guidelines, fucknuckle...
the whole quote is "Apps that duplicate apps already in the App Store may be rejected, particularly if there are many of them". It's up to you how you read that. Rational people will read it differently to trolls, obviously, but for you hard of thinking; key word is that sentence is 'may', it doesn't say will.
primarily marketing tools?
err , won't that scupper a lot of apps now being promoted by major companies ?
3rd party browser are fine and good.
Their controls are horrible.. so yeah it doesn't let the kids download the apps, but it still lets them see the app and read the descriptions. There are some things kids just don't need to see, like 101 sex positions.
"we're keeping an eye out for the kids"
Isn't that exactly what paedophiles do?
...every... Oh nevermind.
We can do that. You can't!
A can do this. B can't. Now they can. Now they can't, again...
Why is anybody still developing for these control freaks?
Don't have. Don't want. To be honest, I really can't see the appeal of any of them..... iOS or otherwise. The phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" springs to mind.
I must be getting old.... Oh well, the Archers will be on soon, then time for a little cat-nap!
Reality? Reason? Verboten!
So by the published rules I can:
* exclude my competition from the iTunes store if I'm the first to market with some novel functionality (no matter how shite the product)
* produce porno in the form of a song/musical,
* visualise violence in games so long as it involves impossibles person and/or means,
and whatever else I cannot in any way offend anyone that exists either functionality or non-functionally...
...glad that got cleared up! :^)
anything that portrays a "real entity" as an enemy
So no multiplayer games then?
Re: anything that portrays a "real entity" as an enemy
Quote: "So no multiplayer games then?"
That shouldn't be a problem - iTards aren't real people.
"maybe it's because we're so committed to our users"
Or maybe it's because we're control freaks.
What if I want to develop a better farting app than what's already out there??
That real entity rule...
That non-realistic gaming rule certainly hobbles Apple's attempts at pitching the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch as an alternative portable gaming platform.
Methinks this is just yet more off-the-cuff abitrary thinking we've come to expect of Apple, I'd almost wager money on rule being changed within a month. Or at least that long until a mini-scandal about The App Store Stasi breaking their own rules!
Android vs Apple
This is the main reason why I hate the Android store - it's so difficult to find a decent application because there's so much cr*p on the store.
It's got to the stage where the only way you can tell a half-decent app is if you have to pay for it, and how much it is. Free apps and those less than £2.99 tend to be very poor indeed.
I'm now very much looking forward to getting an iPhone because Apple's done all the filtering for me.
Although, I do have to disagree with them about Opera - I don't see why an app can't use its own rendering engine if it's better than WebKit.
Opera does its forbidden stuff server-side as far as I know. So it's not technically a (complete) browser.
Why does everyone have a problem with these rules? Apple never told you not to buy an Android, WIndows Mobile or Blackberry phone. iOS is their platform, and if you don't like it, don't use it. To complain is a bit like wanting indian restaurants banned because you don't like indian food yourself.
Opera call it a web browser
While Opera are calling it a web browser (see mini.opera.com) , I think they'd have a hard time denying that it's a web browser.
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- Vid Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins
- Antique Code Show World of Warcraft then and now: From Orcs and Humans to Warlords of Draenor
- iPhone sales set to PLUMMET: Bleak times ahead for Apple
- HTML5 vs native: Harry Coder and the mudblood mobile app princes