It’s strange that nobody has been talking about this before now. I guess when VCs are throwing money at you it’s hard to see past tomorrow.
This app is retired.
PNGPress, my simple image optimization app for Mac OS X is now available on the App Store. I hope you like it. PNGPress will accept any number of PNG images dropped onto its dock icon.
[…] I don’t think it’s unfair for Apple to have a list of the applications produced for its platform that it believes is decent and upstanding, and which it is proud to be associated with. I just don’t think that that list should be the same as the list of all applications that can run, ever. I honestly think that even my detractors will concede this as a fair point.
I’m constantly surprised, myself, how many people still don’t see this as a problem. Is Apple totally within their rights to arbitrarily block apps? Yep. Nobody I know is arguing they shouldn’t be allowed to. However, it is troubling to me that they would want to. A dick move is a dick move is a dick move.
For the price of an $8.99/month Netflix account, you can now carry the service in your pocket. If you’re in the US, that is.
Banned due to a scene which features a nude man diving into the ocean. It isn’t even well-rendered generalia, nor is it sexual in nature. It’s just a little lump below his belly. It’s just a penis, which takes up maybe 1/64th of one panel of a comic book.
I guess comic adaptations of James Joyce don’t fit Apple’s definition of “liberal arts.”
Apple has their head on straight with regards to ports. They want apps to be designed with iPads and iPhones in mind. If that means half the apps, that’s fine. PC computing never had trouble with sheer numbers of apps, it had trouble with quality. Apple is willing to give up some of the former for a lot of the latter.
via Lukas Mathis
Garret Murray, developer of the Ego app for iPhone, on what he calls “revenge reviews”: Reviews posted to the App Store by users who accidentally purchased an app, misread it’s description, or otherwise made a mistake. I hadn’t thought of this:
People brought up a great point the last time I complained about App Store customers—they’re all children. Not metaphorically, but literally. Most of these customers are kids with iPod Touches. So of course they act like children.
But it rings true. I’d go further and say that the ones that are not literally children, are probably emotionally stunted in some way.
Written in HTML5, no need to interact with the App Store at all, it’s available immediately. Funny how that works out.
Opera submitted Opera Mini to the App Store 6 hours ago, and this page is tracking how long it takes Apple to approve it. The closest guess wins a new iPhone. This is pretty clever. Everyone knows the App Store approval process is bunk, why not have some fun with it?
David Barnard on the sales fluctuations in the App Store, and how hard is it to gauge future success/sales on same.
First they came for the creepy almost-porn apps, and I said nothing because I wasn’t into creepy almost-porn apps. I’m sure this makes sense to businessmen, but I am really fucking uncomfortable with Apple being in charge of what is considered “overtly sexual.”
This is purely “I know it when I see it” fascism. There is no defense for it that doesn’t start and end with “they can do what they want so shut up.”
Apple’s latest incredible move: Censoring a fucking dictionary. Apple’s conduct re: the App Store has long since passed the yardstick of “stupid” and into “utterly inept.”
If they cannot be trusted to stick to the rules set forth by human society, then fuck ’em. NOBODY censors dictionaries. Not Wal-Mart, not Borders, nobody. Censoring reference material is not just stupid, it is dangerously stupid.
This is super not cool, Apple. How is GV Mobile (the App’s name) not okay, but Skype is?
Earlier today I received a phone call from an Apple representative. He was very complimentary about Eucalyptus. We talked about the confusion surrounding its App Store rejections, which I am happy to say is now fully resolved. He invited me to re-build and submit a version of Eucalyptus with no filters for immediate approval, and that full version is now available on the iPhone App Store.
This hasn’t “fixed” any of the serious issues around the approval process, and it took them way too long to do the right thing, but I’m glad for James. Eucalyptus is an application that was obviously crafted with much care. Previously.
Apple has now rejected an application that allows users to remotely manage the popular Bittorrent desktop app, Transmission. Why? Because sometimes people use Bittorrent to bootleg things. In Apple’s own words:
this category of applications is often used for the purpose of infringing third party rights. We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store.
Which means, “we choose to tell you to go fuck yourself” if you’ve just wasted hours/days/weeks of your life developing an app only to have it shot down on a whim.
Garret Murray’s most recent post on his blog, the land where posts do not have titles, is about what happened last week with his (lovely) application, Ego. In it, he basically vents about being a single developer caught between a rock (customers angry that something stopped working) and a hard place (Apple’s arcane approvals process). His frustration is completely understandable with regards to Apple, but I think his larger concern is wrong. In the post, he says this:
This kind of thing continually reinforces something I’ve thought about a lot since the App store was released, which sounds horrible to say but it might be true: Apple is creating an ecosystem of the kind of customers I don’t want.
John Gruber thought it important enough to link to the post using that link as illustration, with the title “Are App Store Customers Good Customers?” This time, though, I think the question is already answered: No, not realy. But the App Store doesn’t create Good or Bad Customers, either. Sturgeon’s Law just as well here as anywhere. What the App Store does do is make it very easy for a user to complain when the mood strikes them.
It’s hard not be frustrated when you have to wait for something beyond your control, but the simple facts are these:
Garrett charged money for an application.
The amount of money is irrelevant.
The application sold Google Analytics support in the same breath as support for other applications that have solid developer APIs
In doing so created an expectation that GA support was “stable” and “not likely to break at the whims of Google with no warning.”
You cannot blame any customer for being angry when that happened.
Do I agree that the users leaving many of these comments are probably huge assholes? Yes. Could Apple do more to mitigate the costs for Developers when something goes wrong? Yes. But the frustration that made Mr. Murray write his blog post is the very same kind of frustration that made those customers, assholes or not, write their negative reviews.
More users means more sales means more assholes.