App Store的排除政策

Fraser Speirs,开发商曝光,iPhone的优秀Flickr客户端,写了一篇关于今天新闻的深刻见解Apple拒绝了iPhone播客客户端Podcaster理由是“自从Podcaster协助发播播客以来,它重复了iTunes播客部分的功能”。Speirs写道

Apple’s current practice of rejecting certain applications at the final hurdle — submission to the App Store — is disastrous for investor confidenceDevelopers are investing time and resources in the App Store marketplace and, if developers aren’t confident, they won’t invest in itIf developers — and serious developers at that — don’t invest, what’s the point?

You have to wonder if Apple wants the App Store to be a museum of poorly-designed nibware written by dilettante Mac OS X/iPhone OS switcher-developers and hobbyist studentsThat’s what will happen if companies who intend to invest serious resources in bringing an original idea to the App Store are denied a reasonable level of confidence in their expectation of profit.

非常正确If you only find out at the end of the development process that your app has been rejected — not for a technical problem that you can address but because Apple deems the entire concept to be out of bounds — then who is going to put serious time and talent into an iPhone app?

如果有其他方式分发iPhone应用程序 - 说出来在Paul Kafasis的条款中,如果Apple是一个App Store而不是App Store - 那么Apple的商店可以被排除在外But so long as it remains the sole means of distributing iPhone apps, then the policy for determining which apps get in must be inclusive, rather than exclusive, at least if there is to be a robust, innovative developer community for the iPhone like there exists for the MaciPhone无法与Apple自己的应用程序竞争,甚至无法与您竞争不能做屁笑话,并没有比去年的SDK少的iPhone好,但有游戏和待办事项列表应用程序。

让我们明确一点:禁止“功能重复”是禁止竞争的竞争的关键是做同样的事情,但更好更糟糕的是,Apple甚至没有说哪些功能是禁止的我不是在某种抽象意义上争论什么在法律上或道德上是正确的我说的是常识 - 有才华的开发人员正在研究App Store的情况,并选择不写iPhone应用程序,因为担心他们的努力将是徒劳的如果优秀的开发人员害怕为您的平台编写软件,那就是一个问题。

App Store的概念有所取舍这个模型的优点和缺点与Mac OS X的开放性有关双方都有合理的论据But blatantly anti-competitive exclusion of apps that compete with Apple’s own? There is no trade-off here.没有人受益于这样的政策,甚至不是Apple如果这是苹果的真正政策,那对平台来说就是一场灾难如果这不是Apple的政策,那么Podcaster的排除就是证明批准过程完全被打破了。