It always makes me sigh when I read stories like this.
For decades Microsoft was bashed for offering up a closed system, yet the reality was Microsoft would let you sell any type of software for Windows and they couldn't care less.
Then along comes Apple with it's tightly closed, highly controlled platform and no one raises a murmur, but rather everyone seems to celebrate the idea.
Watching on are the rest of the big players and they see how successful Apple has been, so they all start madly creating their own closed systems.
The reality is none of these issues existed in the old style Windows system, but thanks to the success of Apple, those days are now gone :(
Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates.
> Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates.
Same as it ever was...
Through the 90s and the early part of the 2000s, Microsoft had enough control of the market that it could often kill other vendor's products (or proposed products) simply by announcing that it was going to produce something in the same area of the market. So although the system was technically open, economically the market was controlled: there was only one platform that mattered at the time (Windows) and the prevailing view of the tech press, business buyers and consumers was that Microsoft produced the best software for Windows. So if Microsoft announced it was going to ship something in the future the general consensus was generally that the best decision was to wait and see what Microsoft shipped. It's fanciful to suggest there weren't issues with the old style Windows software market.
You have a funny definition of "none of these issues existed in the old style Windows system" when MS was known to not just one-up third-party apps with built-ins, but to do so without actually ever producing said software (vaporware).
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time this happened. This also won't be the last time either.
When you build apps on a platform, be ready to run into brick walls if you start to enter (or have already entered) areas that the platform wants to get into -- that goes for Facebook and Twitter as much as it does for Apple as well.
I know people who have been royally screwed by exactly this - they give you an API, devs everywhere come up with ideas, do the hard work - and the platform picks the low hanging fruit. Not only do they get carte blanche to steal peoples ideas but the licenses often give them complete rights to steal your source code as well.
"Months before"? If your weather app is only a few months old, then you are far from the first person to do what you're describing. I had an app on my iPad that provided exactly the experience you're describing, and that was I think at least 2 years old (I don't remember the name anymore).
That's only one small part of the story. I think the main thing here is that he had an app that he worked on that was rejected because Apple felt nobody wanted it, and then a few months later Apple releases pretty much the same thing itself and everyone loves it.
I can't claim I'm the first, but it's the first I've seen, as I did extensive research before I wrote a line of code. Send a link if you have one. I'm interested. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding that I'm talking about procedural graphics though, not a video or simple animation.
Weather+ is somewhat like this. It uses HD video clips, not vector art, but it accomplishes a similar task. It has been around for a couple of years at least.
Gotta say... best post title I've seen in a while.
But still a very valid point. I would really support legislation governing online marketplaces, so that this kind of abuse couldn't take place. A company shouldn't have to be a monopoly, for anticompetitive behavior to become illegal.
Where does that stop? You have a nice little directory of apps you built at http://mjbaldwin.net. If monopoly is no longer a requirement before the government steps in, you could have to list my apps and anyone else's that wants to be included. Why should you have the editorial control over what's included in your site you want to take away from Apple?
While I totally understand why you're angry, I'm almost certain Apple's app review team does NOT have access to pre-release versions of iOS, so this probably didn't happen because Apple was working on similar functionality.
I didn't get that he was hinting at that. The problem is what Apple thinks is significant to the platform when they develop it versus when it's an outside developer.
In this case however, if Apple wanted to be fair and demonstrate a consistent behavior, they would give every new version of iOS to their review team and ask them to apply the same logic they use when they (dis)approve 3rd party applications.
When Steve Jobs was around all the really great ideas probably found their way directly to him. If he then decided to call any of those ideas his own and reject the apps, do you think anybody at Apple would defy him?
Whomever that person is now (Jony Ive?) probably got ahold of this app and did the same thing.
Very easy to hide all of this under the veil of 'we were already working on something like that'. The author even acknowledges as much. So blatant theft is basically impossible to prove. But it's pretty naive to think that does not go on.
Granted, a bit more than a month ago, Apple rejected a update for it (because the message of it complaining of lack of GPS had a ok button that quit the APP), and it was really weird, because the thing they complained always existed on the app, and I on purpose proposed a terrible alternative, and they said they wanted THAT. So I DID made the terrible alternative on my point of view, and now the app uses that...
I’m glad I’m not alone! I made a very very similar that did nothing but show you images of things you searched for.
Apple disabled my account one day, without explaining why to me. Today, they owe me $17,000. I contact them every few months, and never hear anything back but silence.
That's what you get for submitting to the development model controlled by faceless bureaucracy invested with monopoly power.
And now people are calling for government intervention there - because if you have a faceless bureaucracy with kafkian rules and rampant rumors of abuse, adding government to it always helps.
This is why mobile apps just don't appeal to me -- the "approval" of what I create by any committee other than the actual-end-user marketplace. Having grown up sharing one's programs and work in a simple, radically open (if slightly risky for somewhat naive users) "download and install" or "install from floppy/CD" or "build from source" exploratory environment, I'd feel extremely foolish submitting my stuff for approval. I'd feel submissive. I don't want Apple's or Google's or Microsoft's or Facebook's permission to share software I make, only their users' choice for or against.
Firefox OS is my only hope but in mobile, they'd also need to get some significant traction going fast.
Chrome Apps are cool, Android is cool, but "Play Store" -- if it's just remotely as "submit for approval" as Apple, then thanks but no thanks.
Thankfully, we still have web dev, mobile web, and a huge base of non-mobile "desktop-OS" software users.
This does suck, I wish it was a true free market. But it still is more open than say console markets or even Steam. I am not sure why they don't fully trust the market to produce and choose the apps.
But in the end we are sharecroppers in a kingdom, they built the platform and have the last say. Diversify to other platforms (I am sure android or windows market would like to see this) but don't stop developing. Every once in a while they let you know with a rejection who's platform it is. In the future maybe it will be fully open, it is what drove Android markets in the early days. I am still surprised one of the competing markets hasn't been more open or taken less than 30%. They just line up behind Apple following suit.
Personally from a game developer perspective, Apple is the most open viable market that has been created for game developers and remade handheld gaming. From a web developer perspective it is more closed.
Outside App (http://www.outsideapp.com/) came out two years ago and did this. Not as nice, no question, but I think the guy's paranoia about the rejection is way off base. Though I do agree that there doesn't seem to be a good reason to reject it.
They built some of your app concept into the core of the phone. They rejected your app because they were about to debut their version. It makes sense why they did it, and it was fair of them to do it.
However, they should have let your app go into the app store. It is unlikely your app would have made techcrunch headlines or taken the world by storm (ha ha) but even if it had, Apple had nothing to fear.
Which makes it strange that the company rejected it.
They couldn't exactly say, "Sorry, but things in your app are going to be in a keynote. We're working on the same thing."
Situations of an app being rejected by apple due to a forthcoming release are rare. (though I do know of another example by a prominent developer)
Your story is a nice read, however your other experiences of rejection are not related to this one. They also speak to a different time for the app review team.
Look, man, I feel really bad for you. But there are lots of open platforms to develop apps for. You make a choice when you decide to specialize in iOS apps. The choice you make is to make yourself a bitch to the arbitrary whims of some goofball asshole sitting in Cupertino, who doesn't give a fuck about your aspirations or vision. You can complain all you want, but they made the garden, and they can do whatever the fuck they want with it.
It blows. But now you know why you need to support an open platform.
> But there are lots of open platforms to develop apps for.
No, there aren't, because a critical part of "platform to develop apps for" is a user base. Specifically, a user base willing to pay money for things. On mobile, that means iOS and to a much lesser extent Android and Windows Phone.
"Develop for an open platform" is like telling somebody to grow a third leg. There are no relevant open platforms. Nor will there be, because consumers do not value openness and no other developers are going to damage themselves by only providing products on niche systems.
[+] [-] jussij|12 years ago|reply
For decades Microsoft was bashed for offering up a closed system, yet the reality was Microsoft would let you sell any type of software for Windows and they couldn't care less.
Then along comes Apple with it's tightly closed, highly controlled platform and no one raises a murmur, but rather everyone seems to celebrate the idea.
Watching on are the rest of the big players and they see how successful Apple has been, so they all start madly creating their own closed systems.
The reality is none of these issues existed in the old style Windows system, but thanks to the success of Apple, those days are now gone :(
Developers are now forever beholden to the big corporates.
[+] [-] Fomite|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alanthonyc|12 years ago|reply
In fact, the opposite problem made it a haven for malware and viruses.
[+] [-] michaelwww|12 years ago|reply
Not if FireFoxOS gets enough support
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/partners/
[+] [-] mhw|12 years ago|reply
Same as it ever was...
Through the 90s and the early part of the 2000s, Microsoft had enough control of the market that it could often kill other vendor's products (or proposed products) simply by announcing that it was going to produce something in the same area of the market. So although the system was technically open, economically the market was controlled: there was only one platform that mattered at the time (Windows) and the prevailing view of the tech press, business buyers and consumers was that Microsoft produced the best software for Windows. So if Microsoft announced it was going to ship something in the future the general consensus was generally that the best decision was to wait and see what Microsoft shipped. It's fanciful to suggest there weren't issues with the old style Windows software market.
[+] [-] enjo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craigyk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhartl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hipsterdouche|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] workbench|12 years ago|reply
Hardly the same
[+] [-] eggbrain|12 years ago|reply
When you build apps on a platform, be ready to run into brick walls if you start to enter (or have already entered) areas that the platform wants to get into -- that goes for Facebook and Twitter as much as it does for Apple as well.
[+] [-] zeugmatis|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eridius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OriginalAT|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alariccole|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mturmon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazygringo|12 years ago|reply
But still a very valid point. I would really support legislation governing online marketplaces, so that this kind of abuse couldn't take place. A company shouldn't have to be a monopoly, for anticompetitive behavior to become illegal.
[+] [-] dangrossman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] milesskorpen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quackerhacker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r00fus|12 years ago|reply
Now, Alaric's app is probably very interesting, but why block it when others existed (and did the animation more poorly)?
[+] [-] Zimahl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andmarios|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wilfra|12 years ago|reply
Whomever that person is now (Jony Ive?) probably got ahold of this app and did the same thing.
Very easy to hide all of this under the veil of 'we were already working on something like that'. The author even acknowledges as much. So blatant theft is basically impossible to prove. But it's pretty naive to think that does not go on.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] speeder|12 years ago|reply
For those wondering, it is this one: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/weather-and-clock-for-kids/i...
Granted, a bit more than a month ago, Apple rejected a update for it (because the message of it complaining of lack of GPS had a ok button that quit the APP), and it was really weird, because the thing they complained always existed on the app, and I on purpose proposed a terrible alternative, and they said they wanted THAT. So I DID made the terrible alternative on my point of view, and now the app uses that...
[+] [-] andrewmunsell|12 years ago|reply
It had animations and an "overview" screen that had times, temperatures, and forecasts. Here's a couple of screenshots: http://us.appitalism.com/app/palm-webos/244623-world-weather...
I also developed World Weather Watch for Mac OS X: http://www.andrewmunsell.com/work/world-weather-watch/
(The animated weather concept was inspired by HTC's Sense UI, though as far as I can remember, the overview list was entirely my own concept and idea)
So, the concept of animated weather, or even Apple's overview list of weather and times, goes back much farther than a couple of months.
EDIT:
If anyone's curious what World Weather Watch for WebOS looks like in motion, I made a video a while back too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3tS7n4VAsk
[+] [-] kenneth_reitz|12 years ago|reply
Apple disabled my account one day, without explaining why to me. Today, they owe me $17,000. I contact them every few months, and never hear anything back but silence.
[+] [-] revelation|12 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlTOI7ZUziQ
It's, uhh, not exactly novel.
[+] [-] alariccole|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|12 years ago|reply
And now people are calling for government intervention there - because if you have a faceless bureaucracy with kafkian rules and rampant rumors of abuse, adding government to it always helps.
[+] [-] r00fus|12 years ago|reply
Government in this case is a set of rules, optionally with an enforcement body (e.g.: public utility commission) that puts fear into the provider.
The only problem with the above is that it requires sane and non-corrupt legislators. Those are getting fewer by the election season in the US.
[+] [-] dualogy|12 years ago|reply
Firefox OS is my only hope but in mobile, they'd also need to get some significant traction going fast.
Chrome Apps are cool, Android is cool, but "Play Store" -- if it's just remotely as "submit for approval" as Apple, then thanks but no thanks.
Thankfully, we still have web dev, mobile web, and a huge base of non-mobile "desktop-OS" software users.
[+] [-] mdwrigh2|12 years ago|reply
It isn't. There's no approval process. Pay your developer registration fee and start putting apps in the store.
[+] [-] signed0|12 years ago|reply
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/appsblog/2013/jun/10/bbc-wea...
Perhaps the requirements are somewhat relaxed for large entities.
[+] [-] joelrunyon|12 years ago|reply
Seems strange that they would let some animated weather apps through and not others...
[+] [-] drawkbox|12 years ago|reply
But in the end we are sharecroppers in a kingdom, they built the platform and have the last say. Diversify to other platforms (I am sure android or windows market would like to see this) but don't stop developing. Every once in a while they let you know with a rejection who's platform it is. In the future maybe it will be fully open, it is what drove Android markets in the early days. I am still surprised one of the competing markets hasn't been more open or taken less than 30%. They just line up behind Apple following suit.
Personally from a game developer perspective, Apple is the most open viable market that has been created for game developers and remade handheld gaming. From a web developer perspective it is more closed.
[+] [-] jonheller|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bredren|12 years ago|reply
However, they should have let your app go into the app store. It is unlikely your app would have made techcrunch headlines or taken the world by storm (ha ha) but even if it had, Apple had nothing to fear.
Which makes it strange that the company rejected it.
They couldn't exactly say, "Sorry, but things in your app are going to be in a keynote. We're working on the same thing."
Situations of an app being rejected by apple due to a forthcoming release are rare. (though I do know of another example by a prominent developer)
Your story is a nice read, however your other experiences of rejection are not related to this one. They also speak to a different time for the app review team.
[+] [-] inselkampf|12 years ago|reply
Apple is too secretive for that.
[+] [-] TheMagicHorsey|12 years ago|reply
It blows. But now you know why you need to support an open platform.
[+] [-] eropple|12 years ago|reply
No, there aren't, because a critical part of "platform to develop apps for" is a user base. Specifically, a user base willing to pay money for things. On mobile, that means iOS and to a much lesser extent Android and Windows Phone.
"Develop for an open platform" is like telling somebody to grow a third leg. There are no relevant open platforms. Nor will there be, because consumers do not value openness and no other developers are going to damage themselves by only providing products on niche systems.
[+] [-] pablasso|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ozten|12 years ago|reply
He was proud of his superior execution and baffled at rejection.
[+] [-] austinl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alariccole|12 years ago|reply