Apple's Chickenshit Approval Process Has Gone Too Far | Hacker News Reader

Apple's Chickenshit Approval Process Has Gone Too Far

gizmodo.com

59 pointsicey45 comments

I would laugh if Google stopped serving their map tiles to iPhones. Google controls a lot of the iPhone (and of the Internet), and I think they should "remind" Apple of that.

Many iPhone users don't buy into the whole appstore hype. It was always going to be like this. It was inevitable.

At the end of the day, the browser on the iPhone is awesome, and it's completely open - I can use whatever webapp I want. That's all we really need in the future IMHO. (Hopefully more and more hardware will be exposed to js).

Even if I do get your point and I agree about apple - I wouldn't want google to be anything but a semi-gentle giant it is as of now.

Thus offering a competitor the perfect opportunity to eat Google's lunch in the mobile market.

Memo to Microsoft: assiduously cultivating the "Do no evil" PR means people will actively fantasize about your anti-competitive behavior.

How would this be anti-competitive? Imagine the following scenario, I invite you over for dinner regularly. One time, afterwards, I suggest that we have dinner at your place instead. You say no. I stop inviting you over for dinner.

Is that anti-competitive? Then why does Google have to serve map tiles to someone that won't let them write an app to dial phone numbers?

That's not anti-competitive because we aren't competing companies, we're friends and (to follow this metaphor the rest of the way through) my girlfriend hates you because she's afraid I'll leave her for you, and she'll throw such a big fit if I have you over, but she's on the lease and there's nothing I can do until the lease is up without causing even more drama.

It's more like, you're Standard Oil, and I'm Ford, and because my dealers are allowed to use every brand of motor oil except yours when they do oil changes, you refuse to let your service stations fill up my cars.

Do you think for a second that Apple shipped an important part of their iPhone platform without a contract guaranteeing the service from the third-party provider?

Google is almost certainly required to keep providing its map content to Apple by contract.

Anybody else find it funny that Apple blocks apps that allow the user to go around the carrier, given that Jobs and Woz's first entrepreneurial endeavor was selling phone phreaking equipment?

It isn't unexpected, of course, but I find it a bit ironic.

Probably my favorite PG quote: "Their previous business experience consisted of making "blue boxes" to hack into the phone system, a business with the rare distinction of being both illegal and unprofitable."

Welcome to carrier controlled Mobile software development. Life sucks, telecoms don't like competition, wear a helmet. I continue to be amazed at the outrage generated by Apple fan-boys over an issue that has been happening in the mobile world for many many years.

Perhaps the solution to any company that exerts dictatorial control over it's own property is to throw a legion of Apple nerds at it?

(This isn't to say that these arguments are wrong...they're just several years late to the party)

Here's the problem I've got: In the past if I didn't like what the carrier was selling, I moved on because the other options were equally shitty. In this case, the iPhone's hardware and OS is superior to what the competition offers (that's how it stands today, and of course this is just my opinion).

Apple has also marketed to developers more heavily than I can ever remember Symbian or Blackberry doing; of course the developers are going to be pissed off if Apple starts doing ridiculous crap like this.

Of course, on the other hand, I fail to see how "life sucks, telecoms don't like competition, wear a helmet" contributes one iota to any possible solution. Being mad about a problem gets results.

I would argue that it contributes perspective :-) but that's obviously debatable.

I would wager Apple didn't know what it was getting itself into. Most large companies who want to enter the mobile space don't. They failed to plan for the degradation of AT&T's network as they failed to plan for the level of anti-competitiveness exhibited by most carriers.

Getting angry, by the way, will do nothing...reducing Apple's revenue, on the other-hand...

Please please keep in mind that every one of Apple's developers and customers is entering their walled garden by choice. If their control really bothers you...go get an Android device.

That's precisely my point - if people get angry then they'll start looking at options like Android. That's why talking about it and raising awareness of what's going on is important.

If people adopt the mindset that this is just how it is, and it doesn't matter, then why would they ever leave Apple's orchard for greener (android-ier) fields?

Ah! Well then if you're talking about taking action over anger at Apple, then Here Here! Go Android Go! (At least until Google starts blocking applications too)

It's not like they could (on the handset level) even if they wanted to—you can install applications on Android phones from any source, since they don't have the draconian application installation restrictions that the iPhone does.

Do you really think all the carriers are going to use the fully open version of the Android? Keep in mind, there are three versions of it: 1-Minimal / non-branded, 2-Semi open / semi google branded, and 3-fully open / full google branded.

So far, we've only seen the third and most open version of the platform...

My 4 year old WinMo phone can run whatever I want it to. I'm in Australia. Hasn't this been possible in the US?

Nope. Carriers restrict access to... pretty much anything cool - bluetooth, wifi, internet, usb, third-party apps, custom ringtones, custom wallpapers... all locked down and accessible for a price

accessible for a price

Going online and downloading the unlocked ROM image?

It's easier to buy hard drugs in the US than it is to get the phone you want with the carrier of your choice.

How hard is that?

the solution to all this is simple, don't buy apple products. stop bitching and just stop buying, and tell your friends not to buy either. I refuse to do business with companies like apple and sony who show no semblance of respect for the customer's intelligence. if you want to do crazy stuff with your hardware fine, but don't lie to me about in such an obvious manner.

I'm not sure what other people's motivations here are, but mine—for thinking the same thoughts—is that even with the cons factored in, the iPhone is still strictly better than its alternatives. I don't want to abandon something just because it has a problem, I want to fix the problem. This all reminds me of what happens whenever someone asks about a relationship issue on Yahoo Answers: the first response is always, always "you should leave them."

I personally avoid products where the company thinks they can dictate to you how to use it after you've purchased it. If you factor that in and still find a product to be value added, no problem, room enough in the market for lots of players.

Boycotting large companies rarely works without a highly organized campaign and participation by the masses. Unlikely in the case of Apple and their very popular iPhone. I agree, though, that we need to demand respect as customers.

it's a mistake to think that this is "activism" or about "raising awareness". This isn't about saving the world, it's not about trying to drive apple out of business or even to force them to change their business plan. It's simply buying products that mesh well with your needs. Locked down platforms don't mesh well with my needs, so I buy open platforms. Every purchase sends a signal to the market.

Why people acts like this is news? Apple loves this kind of control.

From a developer's perspective, I think it's important to talk about this until Apple addresses it, or people move to a different platform.

I think the problem is the sheer arbitrary nature of their decisions; it seems like there is a "Wizard of Oz" effect going on - Some mysterious force rejects applications, but you can't ask about the rejections or the reasons because nobody who speaks to the developers is authorized to do so.

It's devolving from an irritation to an evil (in the Google sense of the word).

It is important. But I am sure Apple would listen more if people voted with their wallets.

I agree, I think the only way Apple will listen is if people vote with their wallets. I'm just of the mindset that there has to be a compelling reason to go to another product first. Developers are the force that can make that happen.

Exactly. Gripes like the OP signal to Apple that lots of developers are writing code for their phone. If there were marketplaces to sell apps for other mobile phones, these gripes would be old news.

This is why the 'Web will Win over native apps' because if you serve your app through the web you don't have to deal with anyone's 'Chickenshit approval process'.

Cell networks are dead meat and they know it, and as such are trying to extract as much bank as quickly as possible before their demise.

What troubles me is that if Apple is, indeed going to release a tablet of some description in 2 months, and app development and deployment is going to be along the lines of the iPhone/iPod Touch system, then they'd better fix this fast, and regain developer trust or the platform, no matter how cool, will founder and join the Newton in the hall of shame.

I don't think cell networks are dead meat. They will be, relatively soon, for anything but data carriage yes. But everything you want to get: voice, messaging, web, whatever else; you (and I) want it over the inet. They're (cell nets ops) problem is that inet access is just one product. They got quite confy over the years selling all kind of products and product levels enabled by their cell nets. Inet access is only one product, and in the long term, tends to have only one level: fast, no limitations.

That is a big problem for them I think. No room for up-sells, no room for fudging price plans. It's going to have to be fast and with no limitations or someone else will provide something that will get you closer and closer to that. And the natural advantage of having those towers is not going to last forever (think WiFi, WiMAX and what comes afterwards) so they will have to reduce their expectation and be contempt of selling plain, unlimited inet access. I'm eagerly expecting that future.

Are we forgetting about Cydia? If apple wants us to avoid their official app store, then so be it. GV Mobile is already downloadable via Cydia on a jailbroken iphone/ipodtouch.

RTFA

Dammit, I forgot this was HN. It'll never happen again.

The iPhone belongs to ATT. The fact that it has a fruit logo on it is irrelevent. You are paying to use ATT's system get used to it. When apple does a deal with FOX for the next Mac you will have a machine that can only access Fox.news not the BBC. But it will have a nice smooth case - so don't worry.

If you think that, you haven't seen the way Apple works deals with companies.

AT&T is leaning heavily on Apple because it's scared, rightly so, that they'll lose a lot of money when the iPhone goes to Verizon, which it will.

I also don't approve of that snide little comment at the end. If you've got something to say, say it, and leave the snark somewhere that isn't here.

I really don't see Apple jumping into another carrier-exclusive deal, especially not with phone-crippling shitheads like Verizon.

Why is Apple signing exclusivity deals at all in the US? Down here (Australia) they just go with everyone. The do make them bend and turn and invent new plans that include a calls/texts/data package that's more to Apple's liking, but they go through everyone.

I suspect they had to, initially, and the only terms they could get were for several years (basically until now).

Every US phone is aligned with a carrier. It's not immediately clear to me why that is, but there you go. When the contract is up, Apple has a serious opportunity to shake that notion, but I'm not sure if they will.

Many phones pass out of exclusivity and are offered through multiple carriers. The RAZR used to be Cingular only--then, every carrier had them.

They'd have to redesign the whole thing for Verizon, T-Mobile's a better bet if exclusivity ends.

Only if coverage doesn't matter. Verizon has very good coverage, T-Mobile not so much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com