WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple

Posted by: Jashue

WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/15/10 06:23 AM

I love Apple as much as anyone. But this is the kind of thing that really pi$$$es me off. I must have a screw loose for having an emotional investment in a company (and I would bet that I'm in good company here), but I can deny that this kind of story upsets me.

Apple freely admits that the app in question doesn't technically violate any of the rules, yet they rejected it anyway. Good grief! Are they begging people to give the Android platform a serious look?!? Despite their incredible head start, this this is the kind of thing that could relegate Apple to an also-ran. I'm afraid to admit that this is the sort of thing that could replay the Microsoft/Apple scenario of the 90s. Perhaps I don't have a thorough understanding of the wisdom behind AAPL's business strategy?

And on a side note: why isn't WiFi syncing included in the iPhone OS to begin with? That it is not-- is infuriatingly absurd! Grrrr!

Link to story
Posted by: carp

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/15/10 10:28 AM

Yeah thats to bad . I can't see that either its just wifi sync

Apple seems to not like apps that would over ride any of its features - does make some sense on Apple part , but wheres the choices ?
Posted by: FSM

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/15/10 11:47 AM

not quite the same thing, but the HTC EVO coming out in a few weeks is going to allow wifi tethering for up to 8 devices ($30/month). i could see people paying that and dropping Comcast or other ISPs since the EVO will pull in up to 10 GB on the 4G network. heck, if i didn't have kids then my wife and i would each get an EVO and pay for the wifi tethering (we have 4G coming this summer) and stop paying Comcast $60/month . . . in a heartbeat.

AT&T/Apple remind me of the closed proprietary system that i used to hate about Verizon where i couldn't even get my own ringtone onto my phone and was forced to purchase it through Verizon's online system. the Android OS is more open . . . and the OS itself if built on Linux. i am on a pretty strong open source kick lately so i will likely switch to the EVO once 4G arrives in my city.

i appreciated that Apple rejected Adobe's Flash (still seems weird not to say Macromedia's Flash); however, having Apple use the justification of wanting an open Internet when they have such a closed app store just seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: carp

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/15/10 12:46 PM

Well not trying to debate

But let me wrap my head around this

More open ? humm

Well your still stuck with Android or MS or Apple (closed group of open source developers)

closed app store just seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

Well over 200,000 apps Sure does not seem (Closed app store) , I mean anyone can develop an app and it certainly looks that way .

People are confusing Closed with Quality control - Remember the whole reason originally .

1 - Find apps in one location - before there were hundreds of apps out there , just no one knew where to find them . Example lets take these 200,000 apps and 2 billion songs and spread those all over the net ? iTunes and the app store is sorta like a Wall*Mart <-- yes you have to use their shopping carts , use their check out systems , get used to their store layout - or you can drive to 5 different stores to get what you need .

2 - Have one place that stores and manages your apps and music what was it before , although this is kinda subjective . I guess the majority of people would rather have a one stop place for everything - others would rather have greater control - to each his own .

3 - Greater quality control Nobody wants buggy apps , bloatware like Flash, porn for children to get their hands on, non-secure systems and apps , yada yada

IMO (open) means it runs on any OS without having proprietary services written in . Similar to what Adobe wants to do with Flash have one app that runs on all OSes = bloatware

Apple and AT&T now I like to see that change , now thats what you call a close market - Keep in mind that the other cell phone makers also have their own exclusives as well -> so its not only Apple .
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/15/10 02:31 PM

Well, both Google and Apple get that it's about user experience, but they get two different chunks.

Apple gets the chunk about the interface, unified user experience, etc - This chunk isn't going away and is here to stay.

Google gets the open chunk, that the more they send you elsewhere, build free wifi networks, eventually subsidize phones and pads, etc, etc, the more and more you go back to Google products and advertising - This chunk isn't going away and is here to stay.

Whomever wises up to the missing chunk first, wins all the marbles.

Ed
Posted by: FSM

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 06:36 AM

carp, when you compare Android to Flash then you're missing the boat. Android source code has been completely released to anyone in the world who wants to download it and work on it. while it's true that Google has a huge hand in Android, they also stopped owning it years ago. technically, the Open Handset Alliance is the group developing Android (and other open source solutions for mobile devices). and the Open Handset Alliance is really a consortium of a bunch of businesses including Google (and Google pays a few people to work full time on Android). but it's still open source and free. you could develop a new phone tomorrow and install Android on it for free. if you didn't like something about Android then you could download the code and make the tweaks you want for your device and nobody would stop you.

quality assurance . . . sure, Apple does this better than anyone else with their app store (even if we often get examples of apps being denied that seemingly don't violate the terms -- e.g., see the first post in this thread). Android users can potentially download some horribly coded applications. i suspect you could say the same thing about buying any product in the world -- we are allowed to make mistakes in what we purchase. if you're a casually savvy phone owner (and many people using Android are beyond ignorant, i'd guess) then you can wait for reviews of products from other users similar to buying products from Amazon.com and make more informed decisions on your own. i like that. the Apple store uses that system more or less anyway since you can still get very buggy apps from the Apple iTMS.

i suspect a lot of people do want porn on their phone, carp. porn is still wildly popular on the internet so it's no stretch to think that many end users would download porn-based applications. Apple doesn't even let the user decide . . . and this has nothing to do with quality control. i don't need Apple protecting my kids; i can handle that on my own.

Android isn't proprietary, but apps that you download on an Android device can be (e.g., Flash is available).

i'd agree with you that the whole cell phone industry is a joke. charging as much or more for ring tones than a single costs on the iTMS. charging for text messages when watching a single YouTube video on your phone uses thousands or millions of more data than a simple text message that potentially costs me 15 cents to send. WTH is that? there really aren't a lot of ways we can force their hands. if we want an iPhone then we're really stuck with AT&T. it's hard for me to speak with my wallet if i want an iPhone. that's really crummy for consumers.
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 10:15 AM

Well, it's not a technical issue - It's something else ( Steved ) - Cross-compiled Flash runs as Obj C and Apple has wisely never argued they suck batteries quicker, and they approved a lot of these before the policy change.

Whatever it is, at the end of the day it's good for the old media guys, "helping" them in a way that doesn't process with Apple - They will have to burn their boats or die, because they aint gonna make it with blessed cheezo glorified PDFs. Oh, of course, on a site with wrapped stuff on an Android pad, you can either do nothing ( and suck battery ) or just cross-compile and have cool rich interactive stuff running natively smile , or burn the boats.

So, on one platform your choices are burn the boats or die, on another platform you have three choices.

So, in a weird perverse way, this is good for old media, the guys that this Apple stuff was supposed to help, and help them it will, but just not how anyone thought it would unfold. With any luck, most old media will crash and burn. Or this bites Apple in the arse smile

Thank you, Apple smile

Ed

Everyone's all concerned with preserving stuff - Sometimes stuff must be destroyed and Apple's a great wrecking ball. I don't know how happy they'll be with Apple-branded reconstruction, but hey, that's the Pied Piper's price smile
Posted by: carp

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 10:55 AM

I don't think I compared Android to Flash ? At lease I could not find out where I wrote that ?

Anyway
I do agree that Apple does have a heavy hand on quality control .

Quote:
Apple doesn't even let the user decide
<-- I agree

However when a user downloads an ?

1 - Battery draining apps - Apple gets the blame for lousy battery life
2 - Buggy software - Apple gets the blame for buggy OS its Apples fault and they field the service call
3 - Porn apps - Apple gets the blame for allowing that in the store

Just a few examples of why Apples heavy hand , not to mention that iTMS and app store is new to the Apple Business model, so their over protective at the start and really not to sure what to do .

Most parents are not like you Sean.
Most I suspect don't even monitor their children web habits , so allowing porn in the app store would be a disastrous decision . Apple got slammed over that (Slap the Baby app) and that was not even porn.
Posted by: FSM

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 01:01 PM

i am not sure where my first sentence above came from. let's ignore it. ;~)

there's porn all over the internet. parents know it's the way of the world. Apple could very easily have parental controls built in where you need a parent to unlock the ability to download porn or mature content apps. they could do this easily. since Apple reviews each application submitted they could code mature leaning apps a certain way so they aren't even viewable in the list of apps unless a parent allows it. kids (e.g, 14ish) can't buy an iPhone on their own anyway so even a bad parent has to intervene initially. the default can be to have porn turned off so bad parents don't have to do anything. i am sure Apple could have a system that isn't restrictive for everyone. that being said, i honestly don't care about porn other than it illustrating a point.

Apple already has applications that drain the iPhone. i watch YouTube videos each night right before i go to bed -- to see the top viewed videos each day. that drains my phone faster than just about anything. 3G drains the battery much faster than EDGE, but you also get faster speeds. Wifi on drains the battery faster as well. Flash works on the HTC EVO. that being said, i am extremely disappointed in how YouTube videos run even on my Mac Pro with 8 GB of RAM and fast dual processors. Adobe is really half assing it with regard to Macs. so in that sense, i believe that an iPhone would even have more trouble with Flash . . . so this one is not that big of a deal to me.

Apple doesn't control the quality like one might expect when evaluating every application that appears in the app store. for example, here's a list of 30 apps with bugs right now (and this isn't all inclusive -- it's just a quick Google search): http://www.iphonebuglist.com/last30.php

Posted by: carp

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 01:35 PM

I think the problem with iTunes is that it is sorta family oriented - really all you need is an account number and that establishes your age . Teens today I assume they use their parents accounts to buy music , unless they have their own credit cards laugh

Parental controls blocks web sites , I am sure Apple can somehow block certain parts of iTunes . For example give teen a account number thats different from parents and tell iTune that this account cannot go to (app porn store) could work . Keep in mind that teens are pretty smart and can find ways to break in or simply get ahold of parents account number . Then Apple will get the blame again.

The 100% guarantee way , is to not have any porn at all .

Battery drainers
Correct , but people know certain things like Flash , YouTube , watching movies yada yada - Are already (Known battery drainers) you have to be brain dead to not know that - Its when you down load something like (Spank the Baby) or any other small app , then it drains the battery , people start to think its Apple problem . Like the guy with the Flash Light app , he thought he had 5 hours of use laugh

Quote:
Apple doesn't control the quality like one might expect when evaluating every application that appears in the app store. for example, here's a list of 30 apps with bugs right now


30 out of 200,000 is pretty dang good if you ask me - Try and imagine if Apple lets anyone upload an app for sale at the store , sorta simply like a youtube upload laugh might have 500,000 apps by now with the reputation of (The Crap Store .)
Posted by: FSM

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 02:24 PM

the 30 was just a site listing bugs and i clicked to have it show me the most recently 30 submitted. they have many more. and that might not even be the best site to use to find apps with bugs. i have apps crash from time to time that are fairly popular apps. the App store allows users to write reviews and i avoid apps that are really buggy or seem more like beta apps. if a flash based app was buggy then users would report it and people like me would avoid it to begin with. the market tends to work things out in this regard and i am all for a more open market where the strongest apps survive based on whether we want to buy them or not, not based on whether Apple will approve them or not.

anyway, the whole point i was getting at is that i prefer an open internet and Apple is not any more open than Adobe. Android is far closer to the open system that i prefer to see across the board. but the real reason i might switch to an EVO is less to do with the open nature of the OS and more because 4G is coming to my area and 4G is far faster than 3G.

Check this out (1 minute ish)
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 02:34 PM

Weren't the apps that were questioned not pornographic, but merely suggestive? Apple knuckled under to please some very prudish "family" groups? I agree that there could be a way to filter porn downloads, but most 14 yo kids already know how to bypass that.
Posted by: FSM

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 03:06 PM

i don't recall. but i am much more concerned with the apps that get rejected even though they aren't violating terms of agreement (e.g., the wifi app in the first post).
Posted by: carp

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 03:19 PM

Well the next iPhone is gonna be 4G , so thats a moot point . But if you like EVO better go for it .

Quote:
i am all for a more open market where the strongest apps survive based on whether we want to buy them or not, not based on whether Apple will approve them or not.


errr what laugh never mind I won't get into , I know that is not what you meant .

I agree with most of what your saying just a few caught my eye .
Posted by: FSM

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 05:36 PM

the next Apple iPhone is going to be a fourth generation, but it will still run on AT&T's 3G network. this is pretty confusing, but Sprint is actually building a 4G wireless network that is much, much faster than 3G:

Quote:
Both CLEAR and Sprint use the same 4G WiMAX network, and with good signal can provide average download speeds of 3 to 6 Mbps (with bursts over 10 Mbps)
whereas the 3G network on AT&T gives us:

Quote:
700 - 1700kbps Down
(so, 4G is at least twice as fast as AT&T's 3G and more likely will be about 5 times faster. many times, the 4G speeds will rival my home Comcast speeds.

**source for speeds listed above
Posted by: carp

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 06:08 PM

I meant 4G not 4th Generation - Unless them Marketing guys are playing word games , again that just rumors . Makes sense if Apple wants to stay on top , you can't be the Big Dog when every other phone is faster than yours , Right .

Anyway I suspect 4G not 4th Generation this year , phone wise - as for AT&T providing the service is another question
Posted by: FSM

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 06:42 PM

AT&T getting a 4G network is a year or more away. supposedly they are trying to improve their 3G in the meantime. my part of the world has the Sprint 4G coming in the next few months but places like Chicago might see better speeds with AT&T than with Sprint so the fastest speeds will depend on where you live and that will help the iPhone in some places and the EVO in others.

**source for AT&T roll out of 4G
Posted by: carp

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 07:14 PM

AT&T is already working on what they call HSPA 7.2 Mbps at its peak , still 3G but with what they call BackHaul support ? , in general a big speed bump up

Quote:
4G WiMAX network, and with good signal can provide average download speeds of 3 to 6 Mbps (with bursts over 10 Mbps)


How often are those Burst laugh

Your right AT&T won't be ready until maybe late next year for real 4G - However at least there is a speed boost that looks like it keeps up with Sprint 4G . So at 7.2 at its peak I would suspect the average would be around 4 to 5 Mbps , not to shabby
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 08:22 PM

I wanna know how I can get a BackHaul. wink
Posted by: FSM

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 09:33 PM

i don't care how often the bursts are if the typical speed is at least 3MB or more.

here's what i get right now (12:30 AM) on AT&T's 3G:



that's not quite 1 MB down and pathetic upload speeds.
Posted by: carp

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 10:30 PM

Then HSPA 7.2 even at 3 should be good enough

Makes you wonder if 4G from Sprint was not coming would AT&T even bother to bring HSPA ?
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/16/10 10:30 PM

Hey, good, they're about a year behind Verizon and Sprint smile
Quote:
Verizon touts backhaul support
By Monica Alleven, Wireless Week
CedMagazine.com - March 27, 2009

Verizon Wireless has taken steps to make sure its network is backhaul-ready for Long Term Evolution (LTE), and it’s using Ethernet-based fiber optic technology through Verizon Partner Solutions to get the job done.

The U.S. wholesale division says the fiber links are available to other wireless carriers, as well.

Verizon’s fiber-optic Ethernet backhaul capabilities are a key part of Verizon Wireless’ overall 4G/LTE rollout, the company says Click here!. Getting adequate backhaul in place was one of the challenges Sprint Nextel faced when it was preparing for its Xohm WiMAX service launch.

Verizon says fiber doesn’t suffer the same impact of weather or electromagnetic interference that can plague microwave and copper-based links. Thousands of Verizon Wireless’ cell sites and mobile switching offices across the country are among the first being networked using the fiber optic technology.

Of course, Verizon Partner Solutions doesn’t mind if a carrier is using LTE or WiMAX – all comers are welcome. “In an increasingly wireless-dependent society, cellular carriers like Verizon Wireless are engineering their networks to meet both the exploding voice and data traffic demands of today and the capacity requirements that next-generation wireless technologies like LTE and WiMAX will place on their facilities,” said Quintin Lew, senior vice president of marketing for Verizon Partner Solutions.

Verizon’s fiber backhaul solutions include a Switched Ethernet Service, an all-Ethernet option and an Ethernet over synchronous optical network (SONET) choice. In each case, data from the cell site is converted to packetized data for transport to mobile phone switching offices for distribution over the networks.


For mobile, the backhaul network is the tower-to-backbone/core link. It's a mix of terrestrial and more and more wireless. The more visionary providers are probably going to pure wireless, which should help with the CapEx-OpEx stuff that comes into play hard with these guys.

This stuff is basically a cash flow business. CapEx is investment in the business, adds shareholder value, but the assets are basically worthless since they're in the ground and depreciate rapidly. You don't do telcos for their assets - You do them for the cash flow from good assets, but that plummets as their assets depreciate, falling bandwidth prices, etc.

OpEx is your operating expenses ( including R&D, if you have half a brain ) - Deducting that from revenue you're left with operating profit, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

Then from operating profit comes your CapEx, but also stuff like taxes, interest on service debt, etc, then finally what's left over after all that goes into the bank and/or shareholders.

So, it's pretty ugly if ATT is a year behind everybody else ( and everybody else has been building out their backhaul a while ).

Ed

Oh yeah, what that quote/article doesn't mention is that Verizon has been going fiber optic for all new backhaul and local fixed-voice and digital ( data and entertainment ) subnetworks/last mile stuff since 2000 and phasing in retro work on the pre-exisiting backhaul and local fixed subnetworks - So they really didn't have that much to do for mobile. I'd suspect it was the same for Sprint-Nextel. I had fiber optic in 2001.

ATT could choke on a pure IP network ( and really, none of these guys got right away that applications and devices' convergence drive this stuff, but some have been smarter than others ), and have to throttle, tier, disable whatever, etc, etc, whatever they can to keep from getting overwhelmed. They might not keep up with the devices' convergence ( multi-mode/everything handsets, laptops and pads, whatever ) and applications. That's just pure unfounded speculation, but I guess anything's possible smile
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/17/10 12:26 AM

And getting back to the original post, if your phone/pod/pad is jailbroken you can get Wifi Sync for $10 through Cydia. Don't smash the system, just step around it smile.
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/17/10 01:00 AM

Of course, you have to weigh the advantage of cordless syncing convenience against the disadvantage that it hits the battery instead of charging it, but I find it does make me back up more regularly, so that's got to be a good thing.
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: WiFi Sync app rejected by Apple - 05/17/10 10:18 AM

Yeah, the Telco guys are almost like the perishables guys, corn guys.

The corn guys have this enormous appetite to feed, big money to chase, and they have enormous capacity, with this replenishable stuff cycle after cycle, stuff to boost yield, overcapacity, falling price, growing appetite ( from basically technology, better living through chemistry, HFCS-and-corn-based foods, feed, global demand, etc ), overcapacity, falling price, growing appetite, etc, etc.

Telcos have sorta the same thing. All IP convergence of wifi-wimax-lte-etc on devices/silicon. Rapidly changing world, streaming multimedia, videoconferencing, 3D holography, VOIP, fixed-mobile enterprise, etc, etc. Replenishable infrastructure to match capacity to demand. Falling price. Insatiable demand. Grow capacity.

It's all money, like with the corn guys, but it's quite a trick.

Like with the corn guys, if you can't keep up, you're done.

Ed

And like with the corn guys, they'll go to the government to pimp their ride. The corn guys get subsidies. The telco guys will go after Google, Youtube, Hulu, etc, peer-to-peer, bandwidth tiers, etc.

Here's your free market fundamentalism smile The market's always right. Screw these guys. For all the whining they do, they make BIG money - They just want it bigger and easier. They'd be slumlords if they could.