On Thursday, Apple rejected an application for inclusion in the App Store because it duplicates functionality found in iTunes. The application in question is called Podcaster and it enables users to download podcasts to their iPhone. Apple's rejection letter includes this direct quote:
"Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes."
We've seen applications rejected or pulled before. Each time, a reason was found to support this decision, either by Apple or by folks reacting to the issue. I Am Rich was pulled because it was useless and users might accidentally buy it. NetShare was pulled (most likely) because it violates the user's agreement with AT&T (in the US, anyhow). Pull My Finger was rejected because it is "of limited utility". While I disagree with all of these rejections, they at least had some measure of user-centric logic backing them.
Here, however, Apple has gone too far. Rejecting an application because it might compete with Apple is simply indefensible. There's so much wrong with it that I'm not even sure where to start. There are legal issues to consider, in terms of anti-competitive behavior. There's the fact that Apple isn't actually offering this functionality on the iPhone, so it's not really competing at all. And hey, doesn't Apple already allow plenty of competing functionality, with apps that ship on the iPhone? One need only look at PCalc, WeatherBug, or Big Clock to see obvious examples of duplicated functionality. Yet each was allowed in the App Store without incident.
Competition is like a rising tide - it generally lifts all boats. Healthy competition sparks innovation, which helps users, which drives sales. It's a winning situation for all involved, and that includes Apple. I can think of no argument to back the idea that Podcaster duplicating some small portion of iTunes' functionality hurts Apple.
Simply put, Apple is stifling competition. That's bad, but much worse is the fact that this stifling occurs at random, making it impossible for developers to determine just what will be allowed on the iPhone. Months back, I wondered publicly if a streaming radio app might be viewed as competing with Apple and the iTunes Music Store. When I saw apps like Pandora, my fears were allayed. Unfortunately, it's now clear that such an application may well not be safe after all.
As I see it, one of two things will happen next as regards Podcaster. Apple can stand behind this particular decision, and in so doing continue to be exclusionary when it comes to applications. This hardly seems tenable. Podcaster is just one example of an application users want that Apple is preventing them from getting, and there will be more as time goes by. Eventually, this exclusionary policy will become unprofitable, as enough users demand that Apple open up and many of them simply go back to jailbreaking. When that happens, Apple's hand will be forced and they'll have to open up.
Alternately, Apple can reverse the decision to reject Podcaster. I think they're going to get a fair amount of bad press from this, and that we will see such a reversal. Perhaps they'll claim this particular reviewer acted overzealously, or just say that upon further review, the applications is fine. Either way, this is the right thing to do and I believe we'll see it soon.
If this does happen, however, it will belie the truth of the situation. That truth is the simple fact that the system is not working. When a legitimate application that abides by all of Apple's published rules can be rejected, developers will fear to develop for the platform. That fear will slow platform growth. While it won't ever kill it outright, as there's enough of a market for games and to-do list apps, it's quite obviously a bad thing.
In the past I've stated my belief that Apple's published restrictions are stifling innovation on the platform. However, that stifling is nothing compared to the chilling effect we'll see from arbitrary rejections like this. The possibility of spending months on an application, only to never be able to get it to users because Apple decided not to let you in is an enormous risk and it will scare off talented developers. When that happens, everyone loses.
© 2011, O'Reilly Media, Inc. (707) 827-7000 / (800) 998-9938 All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on oreilly.com are the property of their respective owners. |
|
I agree with all of this, except maybe the legal issue. As I understand it (which may well be wrong), Apple would need to be in a monopolistic position in order for anti-competitive behavior to invite legal action, and that would be a tough case to make. It's still a lousy habit to get into.
Although it's a bit of a stretch, it's conceivable that Apple would find a feature that an independent developer has implemented, decide to make that a core feature, and then revoke that app's berth in the iTunes store after it was well-established (and good enough to copy). Apple has obviously copied independently developed features into iTunes, Safari, etc on the Mac side. It could happen on the iPhone side as well.
I agree
I think that Apple went too far with Pull My Finger; judging applications based on Apple's prediction of market demand seems just as destructive as rejecting their competitors.
Regardless, the way to get Apple to listen is to collect a critical mass of developers who refuse to write for the iPhone unless they agree to a code of conduct such as Fraser Speirs proposed. The only thing that allows Apple to get away with their policies is if we continue to write applications in spite of them. So we need to stop.
I think a developer needs to start a campaign on The Point getting 100 published developers to stop iPhone development unless Apple agrees to a set of principles that provide some predictability for the iPhone development community.
I agree that they won't likely face serious litigation for anti-competitive behavior, but they are, in a literal sense, acting anti-competitively. This is a real concern to shareholders, investors, and obviously developers.
And I think it's plausible that they'd reverse their decision on one condition: Podcaster would likely need to be re-written to dis-allow downloads of files over 10mb while using the cellular data network. Since the media being downloaded is free, it's not posing a threat to the iTunes Store's revenue stream (unless you count incidental wandering in the store), but it definitely doesn't follow the general cellular-bandwidth rules set by the AppStore.
I'm somewhat concerned given Apple won't tell you in advance if your app is going to be approved by its nature rather than when it's submitted either by its nature or its programming or features. I'm working with a programmer on something I believe is fine, but I could invest many thousands into something that would just be dross. That's unacceptable.
From what I know of antitrust law (speaking as a securities lawyer, and largely unrelated discipline) Apple may very well be in hot water depending on how the relevant market is defined. In the 2000 Microsoft decision the relevant market was defined as software for IBM-compatible PCs (and not the greater personal computer market). Here I don't see why the market could not be confined to iPhone-compatible software, a market that Apple clearly possesses requisite market power in.
Given this ambiguity, I seriously doubt this policy was vetted by their antitrust counsel, or even their GC. I can't think of few things more legally ill-advised from an antitrust standpoint than sending a letter to a market actor denying them entry to the market on the basis of "you compete with us, so we're excluding you."
While I agree with all of your points, the one you make in the second to last paragraph is perhaps the most important.
Well said, mate.
If Apple is going to insist on this kind of arrangement then they should at least be open to the idea of an open dialog with the developer community. So I have an idea, I submit the idea to Apple along with all technical details. Apple lets me know if the app would be allowed according to their guidelines.
If it would be allowed, I get a written "green light" letter from Apple that would be legal and binding so I wouldn't fear spending the time to develop the app.
If it would be rejected, I re-submit the idea with revisions that Apple had a problem with.
And this would suck. But it wouldn't suck as much as spending the time and effort to develop and app and have it rejected at the end. You should at least be rejected at the beginning. I'm sort of ashamed of Apple right now. This is 90's Microsoft style.
Hmm... how about just plain acting in bad faith? Isn't that illegal? And doesn't this constitute fraud by implication (i.e, deliberately misleading the developer)?
The stated reason of "duplication of iTunes" definitely reeks here, but not necessarily the rejection of Podcaster.
I think this application and others like it would force AT&T to rethink its position on "unlimited" data for iPhone contracts in the US, and I think we'd eventually see a move toward the more restrictive data plans found in Canada and elsewhere.
The iTunes music store can justify direct iPhone downloads because the file sizes are typically much smaller than 30-minute podcasts and each song requires payment, which makes buyers think about how much they'll transfer.
Podcasts are almost universally free, so there's no barrier to frequent, large-file downloads. If I'm out on the road trying to grab just 3 new podcasts at 20MB each, I'm going to be taxing the 3G network. Multiply that by 5-or-more million phones in this country and we're talking serious potential for network lag.
Not to paint Apple as benevolent in this situation, but they are, like it or not, defending an already tenuous connection to the cloud. Streaming is another story, and that's why I think we'll see Podcaster eventually added to the App store as a streaming-only application.
It's true that there are bad politics at play here. But its also true that there's still a lack of infrastructure in place for apps like Podcaster, Amazon and Emusic to compete on this device.
Oh please.
Apple's ball Apple's game.
Go build your own if you want to play "fair".
I'm glad they are keeping things "clean".
The worst decision I've seen for a long time from Apple. Whether or not they have a monopoly they're the big fish in the pond, and if they start acting like a shark they'll alienate a lot of people. It's also, as you say, a rubbish decision on purely practical terms because it prevents someone improving their device (and if it's not a better podcaster then who cares about banning it?) Perhaps they think it competes with *future* functionality, but if so it doesn't compete in any way which causes them real trouble. For example it doesn't legally prevent them duplicating that function in the future.
I think BF's point is a good one, thought, if the reason for apple's rejection is bandwidth, then they should have said that, not this BS about duplicating iTunes. Based on BF's point perhaps it makes sense to put a stipulation in the SDK that apps using the cellular network have a data cap of X MB per session/month/whatever, but that on WiFi networks they do not. This would enable the use of Podcaster (an app who functionality I'm surprised was left out of the WiFi music store in the first place) over WiFi, and limited use over the cellular network.
It's a very serious ethical bug in Apple's legal department. They should fix it ASAP. This is unbelievable.
Am I the only one that gets it?
Podcaster *does* duplicate iTunes functionality, and it does so in a stupid, redundant, incompatible, and bandwidth-hogging fashion.
Even Apple's own App Store refuses to download apps that are over 10MB, and yet people think Podcaster should be allowed? I just wrote a script to measure, and the average podcast in my library is 26MB -- that adds up to a huge amount of bandwidth, storage, and battery life being consumed by a single application (which, incidentally, can't download in the background), all of which is consumed in spite of the fact that iTunes (which everybody that uses an iPhone already uses anyway) supports podcasts without creating any of those problems.
Podcaster is just a plain bad app for the platform, one that never had a chance of being approved. If the developer wants to complain, fine, but the rest of you people need to calm down and think for a minute before parroting everything you hear.
People, reason this out. The public excuse for this seems kind of thin, so what could the real reason be?
The music labels.
If the iPhone could then download mp3s that were perhaps, NOT podcasts, and do so by bypassing the iTunes store, you essentially have a small one-way P2P client. See where this might cause a legal problem? (And btw, not saying I agree, I'm just saying I know how the labels think on this) Apple previously stated that the only way to download music is through iTunes which insulates them somewhat from this position. This podcaster app could circumvent iTunes.
Add on top of that, as a few have pointed out, that this could happen over the 3G/Edge connection, and now you've got the Mobile operators lawyers in the mix too.
The labels have wanted to charge extra for the 'privelege' of downloading music over the cell networks (vs. WiFi), which is why the iTunes music store only works on WiFi. (I still have a 1st Gen iPhone, so can't verify if that is still the case, but I haven't heard different).
Now I agree that there are issues with the current App Store, specifically the NDA, but there have been a number of 'official' reasons for things over the years from Apple that were just ways of rewording the fact that third-parties (the Labels/RIAA) have a lot of restrictions on what Apple can do with content. And that is certainly still the case with telcos like AT&T.
Is it possible Apple is just being heavy handed and unreasonable? Sure I guess. But why do that to a new platform for no reason at all? There is a reason, they just likely can't come out and say it directly.
@Tony: No, you're not getting it...
"Podcaster *does* duplicate iTunes functionality, and it does so in a stupid, redundant, incompatible, and bandwidth-hogging fashion."
It duplicates functionality of the *desktop* iTunes. So what? Plenty of useful App Store apps provide the functionality of desktop apps. And refusing an app because it duplicates functionality of Apple's apps is, to be blunt, evil.
"Even Apple's own App Store refuses to download apps that are over 10MB"
Only over EDGE. WiFi is fine. Remember WiFi? Remember the iPod Touch, which doesn't even have EDGE? And consider that Apple's rejection was not for reasons of bandwidth usage, so your point is irrelevant.
"just wrote a script to measure, and the average podcast in my library is 26MB -- that adds up to a huge amount of bandwidth, storage, and battery life being consumed by a single application"
You could say the same thing about Pandora, last.fm, or any of the dozen other streaming-MP3 apps that have been available since June. Or of course you could watch YouTube videos all day long.
"all of which is consumed in spite of the fact that iTunes (which everybody that uses an iPhone already uses anyway) supports podcasts without creating any of those problems."
I don't sync my iPhone with my Mac all that often, and I don't see why I should have to, just to receive a new podcast. I don't have to sync with the desktop to get new emails or even new apps.
"Podcaster is just a plain bad app for the platform, one that never had a chance of being approved."
I completely disagree, and you might consider why you are the only person (of dozens whose opinions I've been reading) who feels this way. Or why your reasons don't apply to comparable apps like Pandora or last.fm.
Adam Rice: Indeed, I can't speak with authority on the legal aspects, but I believe it should be a concern.
punkassjim: Bandwidth usage may be a concern. Then again, YouTube downloads whole videos, and Pandora can be run for hours on end. Apple never said "Make this WiFi only", they said "don't replicate our features".
Glenn Fleishman: It really is just that, "unacceptable".
Hal: It will be interesting to see. I doubt we'll ever see a real case about it, but I'd also wager that you're correct - this wasn't vetted.
Chris: That certainly would suck, but at least it would be clear.
me: There might be a legal case to be made here, but it's going to be an uphill slog for any developer.
BF: That may be the case, but as noted above, Apple didn't say "This must be wifi only". That's easy to do in code (make something require wifi, not EDGE/3G). Further, have a look at something like Pandora, or other radio clients, or even the YouTube app. These all can (and do) download large quantities of data. Certainly Podcaster could contribute to the problem as well, but Apple made no mention of this in their rejection.
Ted: I honestly can't imagine what you like about this situation. Apple is "keeping things 'clean'" by excluding a legitimate app that follows all their rules, for the stated reason that it replicates iTunes functionality. How in the world is that a good thing for you.
As for "Build your own", that's just a ridiculous statement to make. I and many, many others believe Apple has acted incorrectly, so we should start a new cell phone company and create our own device? That's not logical or realistic. We want to change and improve what already exists, and get Apple to play by the rules they set out from the get go (in the SDK agreement). Apparently, to you, that's too much to ask.
Martin: That's quite right - the legal aspects aren't really very important in the short term. The alienation that is occurring based on this issue is real, and happening right now, regardless of whether the move has an legal problems or not.
jb: That's correct - if there's an issue with bandwidth, Apple needs to state that, and put it in the rules. Otherwise, developers need to constantly tip-toe around any apps that might start to use a bit of extra bandwidth.
Tony: As noted, if the issue is one of bandwidth, then Apple 1) Should have said so and 2) Should require that the application be Wifi only, which is easily done. But they didn't do other of those two things. So I'd say in this case, you're not getting it, no.
MobiWan: If we're to believe that the stated reason is NOT the real reason, then Apple really, really picked the wrong faux reason to give. From a PR perspective, from a legal perspective, from -every where-. I don't think your theory holds water. I'm sure music labels will want to prevent song downloading, but I don't think that factors in here.
Jens Alfke: Well-argued. I tire of reading people making excuses on behalf of Apple. I didn't think we'd see it with this one, it just seems too far gone, but there it is.
>It's a very serious ethical bug in Apple's legal department. They should fix it ASAP. This is unbelievable.
But why should they fix that ?
This is how they work !!
And this isn't surprising nor new at all... Since at least 10 years Apple as been killing the competition this way. They want and need to *control* everything!
In the early days of MacOSX they killed competitive apps by implementing the same functions right built into MacOSX: easy way to kill a certain application, right ? :) (remember of Sherlock ?)
I have been saying since years that Apple are real "bad" in this regard... This is just something more. I wonder how much it will take and how far could Apple go before all Apple fanboys realize what they are doing!
One of the reasons I won't get an iphone anytime soon is because it's so *closed* and *controlled* by Apple... This may be as good as you want (and yes, it *is* good!), I won't get it because I'm against this kind of behaviour!
I don't need any Nokia (iTunes like) proprietary application to transfer software and/or music on my Nokia phone...
I have posted most of this at another blog.
First I am not a developer, I am just an iPod touch owner who would like to use my device to its fullest. I believe that “iTunes Store App Store” developers should try to form a sort of “interest group” perhaps under the auspices of a third party organization such as the EFF or the Creative Commons Org - heck- even O’Reilly Media would do. This group would work like a lobby or a union. It's purpose would be to present a unified front against Apple and should not be seen as a "developers programming help group". A group where small and large shops along with independent programers can join.
The App Store is growing quite fast and large and is quickly becoming a major revenue source as well as being a tool to ensure/create iPhone and iPod Touches sales. I can easily imagine it being used in the future to deliver applications for the Mac itself along with a mechanism for user input. Just think about it. My Mom gets a iMac for Christmas and slowly gets comfortable using it. Her wishes and needs start to rise above the beginners level and she discovers that she can use it to support her hobbies and tasks. Through browsing the App Store she find trinkets along with gems to make her life more productive and fun. She even uses a general feedback/forum system to request desires and needs - such as a quilting tool to design patterns and stitches or iCal module to remind her to take her medicine. Developers would peruse the feedback to look for trends and ideas. Hey, the only middleman between the customer and the manufacture is the App Store itself. Overhead is reduce and the system should ensure that the cream rises to the top.
And thats the crux of the situation. Without the Apps there is no App store. You developers are on the ground floor of a new sales concept that delivers directly to a market that is savvy, influential and even best of all not afraid to exchange money for quality. But your between a rock and a hard place. You guys should band together and be prepared to protest even going so far as to threaten to strike by pulling your products if your demands are not met. This group should have representatives who would interact and intermediate for the group as well as being a voice. Present their side of the issues while hopefully hearing Apple’s side as well. Of course this group will need to compromise from time to time or even give praise.
I know creating and forming such an entity is a major undertaking as well as having lots of pitfalls. I believe its the only chance for developers to protect their interests and help level the playing field. But it is also a method to show solidarity among yourselves which I am not seeing being discuss or even mentioned anywhere.
I too tire of people being Apple apologists in trying to offer alternative reasons as oppose to accepting Apple's own chosen words. In that view, the only explanation I can think of for Apples behavior is over-zealous middle level employees making arbitrary decisions with-out proper guidelines and oversight. Its just more proof of Apple being stretch thin as seen with recent fiascos such as not meeting Leopards planned release or non-preparedness for iPhone's/iPod Touch version 2 release.
Ian
When this news broke, I was so mad I almost posted my iPhone for sale on the LEM Swap List. Since the app store opened, there have been 2 apps I have been specifically waiting for above all others... 1 to stream content from shared iTunes libraries on the local network and 1 to manage podcasts directly on my iPhone without needing to connect to iTunes. I manage my iPhone from a computer at home. Often, I am caught up with podcasts and would like to be able to download new releases the moment they come out while I am at work so I will have something to listen to on the way home. This app, while a little high priced, is exactly what I waited for and I want it so badly I'd be willing to pay $9.99. When I read that Apple rejected it I knew I can't stay in this jail. Unless they make a pretty public admission that this was an error, this is the tipping point that will make me jump to a Google Android based phone when one is available this Fall. This is really infuriating. It is sad to watch Apple become Microsoft 2.0.
Waaahhh! Crybabies. Waaaaah!
Cry babies indeed! What is it with computer nerds? Apple has every right to reject apps. It's their app store! Whatever they post there is being implicitly endorsed by them. However, the rejection of the Podcaster app is going to far. They should certainly post clear guidelines to iPhone developers as to what is considered off limits.
I don't think that the reason for Apple to reject an app like podcaster is because Apple is afraid of competition. In fact the more I think about it the more it seems obvious to me that any app that enables unfettered downloads onto the iphone will obviously be banned from the app store. I don't have an iphone myself so maybe someone can enlighten me. For example can you download stuff using safari on the iphone like you do on the deskstop?
Utube and Pandora allows you to stream and access content but not physically download right?
However something like Podcaster allows you to download podcasts onto the iphone directly and since not all podcasts resides on Apple's iTunes servers it means that any downloads via Podcaster could well be illegal material. Some pirate could even take a stolen pre-release cd track and put it up as a podcast for people to download for all you know. In fact this makes Podcaster seem awfully like a p2p client. The record labels as well as the telcos will be all over Apple if this happens.
So I guess when Apple says that it duplicates the functionality of iTunes it really means the download functionality and not the competition part of it.
JulianT:
I like your argument, however...
what makes your iphone different from your laptop pc? I can carry around an EEE mini notbook all day and get the same podcasts. The contents of the podcast are typically not illegal music, but Apple shouldn't have a say either way.
I could get the same illegal podcast in my itunes and transfer it to the iphone with no problems.
I see their killer app, iTunes as the most valuable resource they have. They want_ you to use it; to them, having a podcast manager on your phone is one more reason for you not to use itunes. Plain and simple, its the same reason for the lame excuse for AppStore downloads larger than 10MB. There's no good reason for it other than they want you doing it their way.
I don't want to sound like every other person making predictions, but the monopoly talk for iTunes/Store is gaining and Apple really should gear up for a nasty time. iTunes exclusivity for your device is the status quo, but it all hinges on the lie that your iPhone is not really a PC (which it certainly is, however they spin it)
There's no reason a public podcast needs to be stuck inside an encrypted itunes database. Apple doesnt need to restrict how full my iphone is, or how much data I'm using form theirs or anyone elses servers
Seems like Macintosh 1984 deja vu. Ease of use, pretty hardware, and too much control by Apple. The IBM/MS/Intel PC later eclipsed the Mac in terms of market share (even though the original PC was especially sucky, it was much more open). Anybody else think the same thing will happen to the iPhone? Will it be Google, MS, Nokia, or Blackberry?
I will say this. Garbage application do clutter up the store. Applications that are basically duplicates of existing apps server no purpose and make it harder to find the ones I like. I can't even imagine if apple didn't screen the software they put on their shelves. Most of it would be complete trash. There is one thing for certain, "Apple has very high quality control". This is one of the main reasons the computers, ipods, and software are so damn good. To maintain high standards, you CANNOT say yes to everything. That goes for design, business, and life.
I think this rejection is just the tip of the iceberg, and it gets worse (and more confusing) before it gets better.
Take it a step further: let's say a developer builds a quality, but cheap/free version of an existing & popular third-party paid app. If Apple approves it, they're threatening their own revenue stream (the 30% part).
This scenario *will* come up -- what's Apple going to do?
Optimo:
Maybe illegal music is a bad example. But essentially using podcaster one can download anything that is put up as a podcast. Even iphone virus I'm sure.
And yes while I agree that one can transfer illegal stuff from itunes onto the iphone I'm sure more malicious stuff like virus would be filtered out by itunes and the app store. Which to me would be a more important issue.
And btw if you check your podcast folder inside of your itunes music folder you'll realize that that there are no encrypted itunes podcasts files, there are mostly mp3 or mp4 or whatever the producer uses. You can probably just copy those into any old mp3 player and they should work.
Well you're probably right that iTunes is the most important thing they have. If they look after iTunes well they can make sure that the iPhone does a good job. Would you rather have 10 different ways to put all sorts of unverified files on the iPhone and have it screw up on you?
And Andy :
I'm sure this won't be the end of app store rejections but I'm sure it won't get very much worse than this. I guess people should realize by now that downloading files to the iPhone is a definite no no. At least that much is clear to me.
I mean Apple has said it before that they were concerned with security and getting the iPhone working right.
So maybe security concerns are right at the heart of it. But when you say 'duplication of itunes functionality' as in downloads to the iPhone that's true as well.
Frankly, I think this podcaster app issue obscures the more pressing problem to most iphone users (imho, the iphone is for everything but music), that the app store just plain sucks.
As said by many commenters here and elsewhere, there's a ton of crap in the store. It's hard to tell the crap from the gems. There's no way to return an app if it doesn't work, or the description misled you. Half of the reviews are from teenagers who think it's a capital offence to charge $1 for the good hard work of a programmer, particularly when an app goes from free to $1, as if they were somehow betrayed by a mother-like figure (who inevitably pays their phone bill and who doesn't want to see these app download fees at the end of the month). There's no system in place to try apps before buying them aside from extra free apps that just add to the clutter. ... At least many sites have taken up the noble task of reviewing apps for us.
As for the podcaster issue, as much as we might not like it, I feel Apple does have the right to reject apps as it pleases. Of course, it would be nice if the process were more transparent (though Apple is more and more opaque these days, and in some ways always was). And it would be especially nice for those of us that commit time to developing for this lovely little phone if Apple didn't force them to complete an app before approving or rejecting it.
As said by many commenters here and elsewhere, there's a ton of crap in the store. It's hard to tell the crap from the gems. There's no way to return an app if it doesn't work, or the description misled you. Half of the reviews are from teenagers who think it's a capital offence to charge $1 for the good hard work of a programmer, particularly when an app goes from free to $1, as if they were somehow betrayed by a mother-like figure (who inevitably pays their phone bill and who doesn't want to see these app download fees at the end of the month). There's no system in place to try apps before buying them aside from extra free apps that just add to the clutter. ... At least many sites have taken up the noble task of reviewing apps for us.
Cash Making Opportunities - The Beginning The working life is already tough enough, but the worries of being out of work was even tougher. The unsecured working environment have prompted me to search the internet for an alternative source of extra income so that I could learn how to Make Money Work for me and be Financially Independent. I listed down a number of Free Internet Business Opportunity Ideas while researching ways how people earn money online while working-from-home.......
www.onlineuniversalwork
And btw if you check your podcast folder inside of your itunes music folder you'll realize that that there are no encrypted itunes podcasts files, there are mostly mp3 or mp4 or whatever the producer uses. You can probably just copy those into any old mp3 player and they should work.
Well you're probably right that iTunes is the most important thing they have. If they look after iTunes well they can make sure that the iPhone does a good job. Would you rather have 10 different ways to put all sorts of unverified files on the iPhone and have it screw up on you?
mabye not 10 diferent ways, mbut 2 diferent ways would be quit nice, don't you think? Then at least we would have a choice, competition would increase, would all the effects already discussed above. So its ridiculous there pulling this one, harming themselves and the apple-community.
Geld Lenen Zonder BKR
whats the difference there are many duplicate apps anyway. its called competition