iPhone App Store bars mention of Google Android Apple has told a tiny mobile software developer that its application cannot be included in the iPhone App Store if it mentions Google Android. Flash of Genius offers a mobile app aimed at students preparing for their college entrance exams. "Flash of Genius: SAT Vocab" debuted on the iPhone, and at the end of last year, a …
Why do you think they'd reject it?
If something's nominated for an award then it's worth advertising the fact.
Let's take a game for example, it gets a nomination or an award in a trade publication. They include that fact on the box, do other trade publications stop reviewing the game?
This is typical of Apple though, more anticompetitive than any other company I can think of, except maybe one.
Is Apple some sort of cult? Denying the existence of ones family members is often something done in real cults. Looks like Apple is running some sort of app cult! "You must not mention anyone or anything outside the family of Apple wa-ha-ha!"
I bet saying that p*sses off a few fanbois! Don't be p*ssed off! Go seek help to escape the cult before its too late!
Am I the only one who feels a familiar sense of Soviet restrictiveness about the control Apple exerts on ... well, the world. Naturally if you don't remember the USSR this won't apply but the usual justification that "contradicting the party is to contradict the country" seems to have made a bizarre return.
"Yes, Apple is restrictive," cry the fanbois. "But it's necessary to keep the products so erectile-inducingly fabulous!"
The Soviets believed they had the best country in the world, as the North Koreans do now. Not that I'm comparing Kim Jong Il to Steve Jobs, of course. Steve Jobs wouldn't tolerate a puppet version of himself, for a start...
who just doesn't care?
one would assume that if I had an iphone, I probably would be using that iphone, and if I were downloading iphone apps from the iphone app store, that the fact that the application had ports on a different phone, running a different platform in a different store that I couldn't access, and even if I could somehow access these apps I couldn't even run them...
I don't see anything wrong with apple wanting to keep the descriptions for apps clear and concise. in fact I wish that they were even more strict. about it.
I think the article misses the point. I don't think it's a personal statement from Jobs against Google; I believe it's just as the rejection notice says: that mentioning an app's qualifications on another platform has no relevance to the description of its functionality. And I agree.
I would imagine Apple reacting in the same way if the app's description said something like "Works great in Linux too!" or even "Soon to be available for Windows 7." How does that help users determine if the app will work for them?
-dZ.
Well maybe it doesn't exactly tell users that the app will work for them, but what it does do is let people know that it's a quality app that's been appreciated not just on one platform but two, three etc. That tells the user that the developer is serious about this app and that it has a good following on the wider market. What's the problem with that? It's not like someone's going to see the description and say, "Oh damn, this app is available on Android too, now I can ditch my iPhone."
"finalist in Google’s Android Developer Challenge".
Not "runs well in Android". "finalist in [a] Developper Challenge". The "Google Android" part hardly matters, only they have to include it because "finalist in a big-ass Developper Challenge, but we cannot tell you which one because Steve Jobs doesn't like the hosting company" sounds a bit silly don't you think? Actually it's on par with Apple's silliness on this case, so they might as well have tried the latter. They would probably have been banned for life from even looking at an Apple product again though.
I have a T-Mobile G2 (HTC Hero) running 1.5 Android and wish that Google would take some lessons from Apple with their Market. Yes, Apple may have a little too much control over what goes on the App Store, but at least you know that what IS on there is generally finished, polished and will work on all iPhones.
Android Market is full of unfinished crap, 100's of apps that are the same (soundboards, wallpaper collections, etc) and almost totally impossible to search or filter thanks ro Google's complete disregard for the end-user or the app developers.
I think this is a very reasonable move on Apple's part. I mean, not only would info on an Android port be irrelevant, it could also be confusing /disconcerting. Just like if you were on a regular Mac and you saw some application listed on MacUpdate, and it bragged about winning some award on Windows. Yikes!
Dear Number Ten, I purchased this product so that I could communicate with people, listen to my music, and also download some cool apps that I saw on the telly.
Whilst I can do all that, I feel vaguely dissatisfied because I am told that I am being held hostage by not being allowed to do stuff that I was not told that I would be able to do.
Yours Sincerely,
Four By Two
Goddammit, I want to be able to store my knives in people's necks. It's my hardware after all - I should be able to do with it what I want!
On a more serious note, you are asking the government to force companies to not artificially restrict the utility of their own products. Their answer will be swift and simple: stop buying things that you know don't do what you want.
"Apple soon sent an email telling the startup that the description contained "inappropriate or irrelevant platform information."
Such a refreshing change. It reminds me of the good old days when the rules were whatever the boss said rather than 'company policy' or procedure. I really like this from Apple, and hope it is the beginning of the end for preceduralisation and 'by the book thinking'.
"Providing future platform compatibility plans or other general platform references are not relevant in the context of the iPhone App Store,"
Quit f*cking around with words Steve, just say what you mean - you don't want anyone to notice there are products made by other companies. You're God. We get it.
And yes, I think it's relevant - the mention means it's a good app that people will want to buy.
Love it or Loath it, this is just marketing 101.
Apple need to give the perception that their platform is the only one worth using or in fact, the only one you need.
If an application mentions the product is available on another platform, that message is lost.
Reality check folks - Apple is as much about money and control as it is about innovation and design. They are NOT a smiley happy bunch of open source hippies.
It's their marketplace, it's their shop front - they call the shots - if you don't like it, pack up your wares and sell them in another marketplace. Apple have never pretended to be any different (unlike Google)
Nice? No, it's not nice, it's ruthless, but this is business and it's ALWAYS been this way, since time immemorial.
You and I may cry foul. Some of us may vow to shun Apple. Apple don't care, because 99.9% of punters will never hear about Apples tactics and if they did, they won't understand, or care, or will just shrug and say "that's business"
Remember - it's all about choice - nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head.
When you submit your Application to Apples store, you do so understanding there's a hefty barrier of T&C's to wade through and one of those terms is bound to say "we can change these T&C's without notice"
This is Apple's store (like Tesco). Apple's not objecting to the same App being sold elsewhere, with the same name, or winning prizes elsewhere, they're just saying "stay on topic in our iPhone App store with your merchandising materials".
Just like Tesco saying "sell as many packets of Macvities digestive as you like at Sainsbury's, but please don't place merchandising materials in Tesco stores that say how good your digestives are when bought from Sainsbury's."
Part of the problem is that people are bringing platform presumptions across from the PC market (instead of, for example, the games console market or traditional retailing), and part of the problem is that no other company has made the sustained commitment required to replicate Apple's setup. It's like a Tesco with no Sainsbury's, Asda or Morrisons to compare against. The most obvious candidates with the appropriate resources were Microsoft and Nokia, but (a) they don't get it and (b) they don't sustain any initiative for long enough to be trusted and (c) they are actually greedier than Apple with their attempts at content distribution and lazier in fighting the consumer's corner against big content publishers.
Apple must be constantly dumbfounded by the incompetence of their competition.
Apple IS objecting to the same app being sold elsewhere...because you CAN'T buy it elsewhere.
The fact is that the supermarkets acknowledge each others existance and that, even in their own adverts, they admit that some of their competitors stock is cheap.
Does this mean that you can't have, for example, a software review app on the app store that doesn't rate Apple as the top? Hitlar used to do that as well...
at least half of the post are "in agonized hysterics"! "If Microsoft had done something like this..." Could you think of a less hackneyed meme next time? Is there a "Godwin's Law" equivalent for this? I propose a unilateral ban on phrases like; "If Microsoft had done something like this..." or "Cue the double standards" or "Cue legions of fanboi/ys" or "It's a [insert product] killer". They are fucking unimaginative and retarded.
Asassin's Creed app - no mention of PC platform
NFS: Undercoiver app - no mention of PC either
GTA: Chinatown Wars app - no mention of PS(2? 3? oh, whatever) console
Frogger - no mention of Atari
The! Flash! of! Genius! - Finalist! in! Camelstan/Mukhosransk/insert/your/favourite/here! Developer’s! Challenge!
I think we need to chillax a bit and look at how this would operate in a bricks n' mortar shop.
If you were shopping at Tesco do you think that they'd take kindly to a product that said "Ariel selected by Sainsbury's as washing powder of the year 2010"
Or, for a US equivalent ... shopping at Wal-Mart and you get "Tide, more Costco shoppers love us!"
It's tough, but that's just the reality of retail, e-tail really no different.
A supermarket would be threatening to delist any product that did that too.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
