Path of the Digital Katana

Rogue Amoeba (great products BTW) really puts forth the specifics. And gets closer to what is going on in the review process at the app store. Read their pain over here.

All these complaints (they aren’t the only ones that have seen horrid inconsistencies and nonsense) are the sorts of things that happen when scaling breaks, and breaks hard. You hire a bucket of people to get the glut moving on approvals, but many of them really aren’t sure as to the purpose or strategy of it, so they stick to the letter of the law regardless of the sensibility so they don’t lose their jobs, and hammer out procedure blindly.

The idea that it is a public API that they are using to get these images is the crux of it. Even with a knowledgeable employee going to bat, the procedure over-ruled the spirit of the policy, and the denial flew out of Apple’s walls. It should be painfully obvious to anyone with a quarter clue about Apple software development that Rogue Amoeba are doing the exactly right thing, for the right reasons, and giving the best experience with the tools openly provided by Apple.

This should have been approved. If you’re an app dev, retweet this. Blog about it. Make it obvious. Apple has been listening and changing policy and procedure, as well as reversing a number of blatant rejection mistakes when it gets loud enough. This item shows a flaw in the process that is pretty core to the experience, and Apple has actually degraded user experience with this errantly-enforced policy. Anybody that deals with Apple products knows this isn’t the outcome or user experience they want. It’s obvious Rogue Amoeba is doing it right, and the approval process is seriously broken with a very specific case to illustrate it. This can be fixed. All the facts and details are in the article.

C’mon Apple. Fix this nonsense. To the app devs that are feeling these pains, make it this specific. Make it clear the principles at stake and what you did to try to explain it to the reviewers. Then publish it and get people talking about it. We can get them to fix this mess. They want to, at some level, and getting the information put together clearly for them is the first step. Getting a lot of the other devs to crank the volume by engaging the discussion is the next step.

Losing this caliber of developer on the platform hurts the platform Apple. These are the guys that are leads on the Mac, and should be listened to on the iPhone long before the rest of us.

This seems to be getting a lot of play today: Facebook iPhone app developer hands it off and goes on to other projects: At TechCrunch

The thing that seems to be completely missing is what he finds so objectionable. There’s a quick jab that he’s opposed to the very existence of the review process. So it’s political/philosophical? I suppose his work at Facebook and how it reflects on that company isn’t reviewed by anyone and he’s totally free and unfettered to produce the good, the bad and the ugly as he sees fit?

There’s a lot of things wrong with Apple’s review process, but compared to my experience with Palm and Blackberry, there’s a whole lot less crap coming out on the platform in comparison. I can’t prove that’s credit to the app store, but I suspect there’s a chunk of credit due there. There’s a lot of issues with it as well in rejections from Apple on overlapping or confusing interface and conflict with built-in applications. I think the difference is that Apple is trying, and succeeding to varying degrees, to provide a more consistent level of experience with the platform. That’s bringing a lot of pros and cons to what we can and can’t do as developers on the platform, and there is a big obfuscated review system inbetween the devs and the customers. It’s different, and it’s far from perfect, but I think there’s benefits there worth pursuing and working to improve with Apple.

Now, if you could put together competing app stores, that would be quite interesting as well. I wouldn’t mind some competition on that side. On the opposing view, the worm that’s trashing up iPhones in Australia is on jailbroken iPhones running applications put out by devs that are very competent, but they aren’t reviewed and they aren’t within the confines of Apple’s restrictions and systems. I think that’s an indicator that there is some end-user benefit to the way Apple is doing this. And keep in mind, as developers, that’s who we are here for. The Users. Not ourselves and our own political agendas.

I really like the Facebook iPhone app. Would have shelled a few bucks out for it was it a paid-for app. I’m sorry to see a talented programmer bail on the platform over Apple’s policies, but he has every right to do so and make his opinion heard. I just wish it had a bit more meat on it than being opposed to “the very existence of the review process”.

I’m sure that more platforms will put in review processes actually based on the success of Apple, but others will not. The users will decide with their wallets which one contributes to a more desirable product and platform. I’m pretty sure we’ll have both models for a long time to come.

Let’s Kill the OS Upgrade Disc – CBS News: ”

Not having an upgrade disc is what the Mac OS X series has had from the start. Even Snow Leopard is that way despite the fact you are supposed to be on Leopard to pay the upgrade reduced price rather than full box set price. Snow Leopard is a bit of an outlier at any rate.

But this guy is saying just put in a subscription. Apparently he didn’t hear the corporations that paid just such a subscription to Microsoft and got nothing for it screaming for blood a few years back. And again was not listening too closely when that fee gave them Vista and broke rather sizeable chunks of their software and IT processes.

No way. If Mac offered a subscription for OS upgrades, even then I would say only maybe because sometimes old software you need breaks and you can’t upgrade until it’s ready to go. And until it’s ready, I’ll keep my money. With Windows, it seems you pay to break the majority of your software for home users, being games and fun bits that aren’t always written so well or on enduring APIs.

Applications, on the other hand, I’m all for his approach. In-app upgrades, fully downloadable. Of course, most of the solid apps do that already. At least on the Mac. Sorry, but I’m still amused at the catch-up. People seem to think the Mac is fan boy base and not capability. I got onto this platform after running Windows, Unix and Linux as my primaries for many years. I went to it because it works, and it’s higher quality. Losing some software options was outweighed by having this sort of capability and maturity already there for the past half decade. And it keeps getting better. I’m not turning the clock back. It’s just good to see another platform, especially the dominant one, trying to at least start to move forward at last.

Now about that WinFS thing……..

I’m at a loss on this one. I run XP (fully licensed) on my Parallels machine on my Mac. Usually to test the worlds worst browser family of IE, but occasionally to run a few dev environments for microcontrollers (ColdFire) that don’t like mac, and are a pain to install on Linux.

So, I’d like to get and stay familiar with Windows once in a while, and I figured, let’s look at 7 as it sounds like it’s not the complete loss Vista was. There’s even some decent reviews lurking about on it.

To upgrade my XP to Windows 7, I can’t just upgrade to “Home Premium” from XP, or I lose the XP productivity compatibility mode…. which I think is XP compatibility but it’s not like Microsoft bothered to write up a “what is this” page on that little line item feature. I need to upgrade to professional or ultimate. Just for being able to work with an OS that I’m upgrading from. Huh?

Then I look at the prices, and to get the stuff that the Mac OS X has come with for a couple of versions now (you choose the language to work in or multiple languages, file, directory and disk encryption built-in, automatic backup, create local networks easily and quickly, work with the previous version of OS ( or in Macs case anything since about 10.2 usually still works, althouth the powerPC binaries are starting to fall away), I wind up paying about $300 for the priviledge. I think I’ve usually paid $119 for a single Mac OS X copy, or $179 for a family pack (5 computers in a household).

Sorry, but the value as a primary OS simply isn’t there in comparison, and as an occasional OS for keeping my toe in Windows, it most CERTAINLY isn’t there.

It’s cheaper to buy a fricking PC with a license on it and then sell the PC without an OS on it, but that’s probably against some obscure terms and conditions of the license agreement.

They keep bragging about how Windows 7 is trouncing the Vista early adopter numbers. It’s not hard to beat single digits, especially when you’re killed support on the last decent OS you put out 7 years ago.

Easier to buy a PC, clone it into a VM with Parallels and wipe the drive clean and install Linux on the POS. What a ridiculous licensing gong show. You know it costs a small fraction to get it on a new PC, but try to just buy the OS and you’re going to pay dearly for not landfilling another computer.

Windows. Microsoft. Still feels like 1995 to me when I deal with them.