iPad, iPhone OS 4.0, ect...

[GMG Mike]

The link goes to the App Store. You did not demonstrate how one can sell an app without using the App Store.

There needs to be a supported method of creating and selling apps without going through the App Store or Apple's approval process. Consider the Macintosh - we don't have to submit our apps to some clearinghouse just to get them released. We just release them, and everything works pretty well.

Steve Jobs remarked recently about the Xcode-only limitation in the SDK. He said that "allowing" third party development systems such as CodeWarrior held back the platform due to lagging apps. Would you like it if you could only make your games in Xcode? How many games do you think we would never see? Should those people not have been making games in the first place? After all, they're inferior games because they were made in an inferior program. You should take classes and learn Xcode and spend twice as much time to make the same game and then it only works on 10.6 because you only learned the latest SDK.

[GMG Mike]

Gan - you edited my post instead of quoting me. Please fix the original post and then put a proper post below it, so I can reply correctly.

[Gan]

Holy cow! Sorry Mike, that was completely unintentional. Didn't even notice--All better, good thing I quoted everything you said.

The link goes to the App Store. You did not demonstrate how one can sell an app without using the App Store.

True, though I did demonstrate this:

Yeah, of course. The issue is that that is your only option, a developer can't just start a website and sell his own iPhone applications.

I guess he was just a bit vague in the post.

There needs to be a supported method of creating and selling apps without going through the App Store or Apple's approval process. Consider the Macintosh - we don't have to submit our apps to some clearinghouse just to get them released. We just release them, and everything works pretty well.

You gotta realize the impact an app store-less market for the iPhone would have. No security, people would be replicating Apple's apps, they'd be using private API's, viruses, they could potentially crash cellular networks, overload things, go rampant on the iPhone(As sandboxing wouldn't exist), inappropriate apps would thrive, users would not have a nice market to buy stuff from. They wouldn't know who to trust and chances are anyone can do horrible things to them. Did I mention viruses?

Steve Jobs remarked recently about the Xcode-only limitation in the SDK. He said that "allowing" third party development systems such as CodeWarrior held back the platform due to lagging apps. Would you like it if you could only make your games in Xcode? How many games do you think we would never see? Should those people not have been making games in the first place? After all, they're inferior games because they were made in an inferior program. You should take classes and learn Xcode and spend twice as much time to make the same game and then it only works on 10.6 because you only learned the latest SDK.

The mac and iPhone are very different. The iPhone has private APIs, sand boxing to preserve user data and keep apps from being monsters, and many other things...
Macs can handle that stuff. Your analogy doesn't work very well; the iPhone needs the security probably most of all.


-Gan
P.S. Pirating would also be through the roof as people could download apps, upload them and allow others to download them for free. Having that sort of free-app method would make the App Store useless as it goes against their goals. Then users wouldn't have a friendly app store to find all the hundreds of thousands of apps they'd ever want.

[WarHampster]

This is a case of anarchy (open architecture and market) versus dictatorship (current situation; Apple controls everything). Neither scenario is perfect - anarchy would lead to less security and porn games, while the status-quo allows censorship and hinders creativity. Ideally we would have a mixture between those two extremes, but ultimately it comes down to what is most profitable for Apple - and clearly, a model which forces developers to program on Apple products and sell their games at the mercy of Apple's censorship on Apple's store is more profitable for the corporation.

[Gan]

Exactly.


-Gan

[GMG Mike]

-No security
Too vague.

-people would be replicating Apple's apps
The restriction against duplicating Apple's apps is bullshit anyway.

-they'd be using private API's
Whoop-dee-do?

-viruses
In theory only.

-they could potentially crash cellular networks, overload things
I actually don't see how this is possible.

-go rampant on the iPhone(As sandboxing wouldn't exist)
Sandboxing is independent of whether or not the app is from the App store or an independent release...

-inappropriate apps would thrive
Irrelevant.

-users would not have a nice market to buy stuff from
I'm not advocating that we shut down the App store, I'm advocating that developers have alternate means of distribution.

-They wouldn't know who to trust and chances are anyone can do horrible things to them.
Then how can you trust any Mac apps you download? How did you ever trust SilverCreator? After all, it's written in a subversive language (REALbasic) that goes against Apple - and it wasn't published through an App store, OMG!

The mac and iPhone are very different. The iPhone has private APIs, sand boxing to preserve user data and keep apps from being monsters, and many other things...
Macs can handle that stuff. Your analogy doesn't work very well; the iPhone needs the security probably most of all.

You just said that the iPhone has sandboxing.

The Mac OS also has some private and undocumented APIs, and has had them since 1984, yet if you use them in your Mac app, you're not a banned thought-criminal as you would be on the App store.

P.S. Pirating would also be through the roof as people could download apps, upload them and allow others to download them for free. Having that sort of free-app method would make the App Store useless as it goes against their goals. Then users wouldn't have a friendly app store to find all the hundreds of thousands of apps they'd ever want.

We already have pirating of App Store apps. Someone buys the app and then cracks it so everyone else can use it for free. Instead, non-store apps could use a standard serial number system.

More music is pirated than paid for from iTunes; does that make the iTunes store useless?

[Gan]

-No security
Too vague.

Unrestricted access. Doors without locks. Apps could access user data and skrew many things up. Look at JailBroken iPhones, they have tons of access, nearly unlimited which allow them to directly change anything in the system. Even the UI.

-people would be replicating Apple's apps
The restriction against duplicating Apple's apps is bullshit anyway.

Hmmnm...

-they'd be using private API's
Whoop-dee-do?

API's to access core features which only the Apple Team should have access to.

-viruses
In theory only.

There are viruses for jailbroken devices. They works because they have the access.

-they could potentially crash cellular networks, overload things
I actually don't see how this is possible.

I once read an article on this... I'll have to dig around.

-go rampant on the iPhone(As sandboxing wouldn't exist)
Sandboxing is independent of whether or not the app is from the App store or an independent release...

With free access they could use private APIs to access user data and go around sandboxing.

-inappropriate apps would thrive
Irrelevant.

Entirely relevant, major reason why they have censorship on the App Store.

-users would not have a nice market to buy stuff from
I'm not advocating that we shut down the App store, I'm advocating that developers have alternate means of distribution.

A free app market would destroy the whole purpose of the App Store which is to control what kind of apps go on the iPhone/iPad/iTouch. Who'd pay $99 to put an app on the app store when they can freely distribute?

-They wouldn't know who to trust and chances are anyone can do horrible things to them.
Then how can you trust any Mac apps you download? How did you ever trust SilverCreator? After all, it's written in a subversive language (REALbasic) that goes against Apple - and it wasn't published through an App store, OMG!

Mac was made to be more secure. It can handle applications that can access user data without being sand boxed.

The Mac OS also has some private and undocumented APIs, and has had them since 1984, yet if you use them in your Mac app, you're not a banned thought-criminal as you would be on the App store.

You wouldn't be banned, just have your app rejected.

We already have pirating of App Store apps. Someone buys the app and then cracks it so everyone else can use it for free. Instead, non-store apps could use a standard serial number system.

Exactly why a free app store is a bad reason. Without jailbroken devices pirating would = 0 for the app store. Thus developers could get much more money that they deserve.

More music is pirated than paid for from iTunes; does that make the iTunes store useless?

It makes it less effective.


-Gan

[GMG Mike]

Censorship is an invalid reason to support the App store. If your application is compliant with the laws of the United States, or in whichever country it is released, then it should not be subject to any censorship for distribution within that country or any other country in which it does not violate the law. This is not 1984.

As far as private APIs go, they should have written the OS in a way as to not expose any private APIs, or physically prohibited non-Apple apps from using them. The entire issue is very problematic - one of the things Microsoft was cited for in the 90s was using secret APIs in Office which allowed it to have more features/whatever than the competition, thus giving Office an unfair advantage over other office programs on the free market. Apple screwed up here - not the developers.

[Gan]

Some of Apple's goals are to make the devices family, gaming, and educational friendly. That means censorship.

They do prohibit non-apple apps using private APIs. They have some sort of scrubber that goes through your app and detects private APIs in the submitting process into the app store.


-Gan

[GMG Mike]

Some of Apple's goals are to make the devices family, gaming, and educational friendly. That means censorship.

Then Safari and Mail must be removed, as well as any app that uses WebKit, and the new Opera Mini browser, hell, any app that access the internet, because they all have the potential to load pornography and other "subversive" materials.

[Gan]

Indeed, though much safer than having those sorts of apps directly on the App Store such like what Android has.


-Gan

[GMG Mike]

Indeed, though much safer than having those sorts of apps directly on the App Store such like what Android has.


-Gan

Those apps don't need to be in the App store. I'm not advocating that at all. I'm advocating that developers be able to release apps outside of the App store.

[Gan]

That'd destroy the purpose of the app store. To have a safe and friendly environment to find apps. To allow only certain types of apps on the iPhone.


-Gan

[GMG Mike]

That'd destroy the purpose of the app store. To have a safe and friendly environment to find apps.


-Gan

Allowing independent apps does not destroy the App Store!!! Hell, most people will still use it, just because it's an established market (sort of how everyone uses eBay). All it does is allow some independent developers to release apps without censorship.

I sell Apple products every day, I love Apple but I stop at drinking the kool aid. If you don't question anything then you will lose everything.

[Gan]

I've questioned and agreed.

App Store seems like not only the best thing for Apple but also the developers.


-Gan
P.S. You should try Apple's hamburgers, goes great with the Kool-Aid.
P.S.S.

To allow only certain types of apps on the iPhone.