backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 38 comment(s) - last by foolsgambit11.. on Nov 7 at 7:33 PM

Google Street View on the iPhone  (Source: iPhoneYap)

OTA podcasts are coming via the 2.2 software update  (Source: Flo's Blog)
Apple's reasons for blacklisting Podcaster come to light

In mid-September, Apple sparked a firestorm of controversy when it rejected an app called Podcaster from admission to the iTunes App Store. At the time, an Apple representative proclaimed that, "Since Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes."

However, no such functionality existed to allow for mobile downloads of Podcasts using existing Apple software without being tethered to a Mac or PC. Many in iPhone/iPod touch community were angered by Apple's actions which led to a lot of bad press for Apple. Apple later slapped NDA warnings on its rejection notices to cut down on negative comments, but later reversed its draconian stance.

Now that the Podcaster/NDA ruckus has mostly blown over, a news story from TUAW sheds some light on why the Podcaster application was rejected in the first place. According to those familiar with the upcoming 2.2 software update for the iPhone and iPod touch, the ability to download podcasts on the fly has been enabled.

Users will now be able to directly download podcasts onto their devices via a "Get More Episodes" button from the Podcasts menu.

The 2.2 software update will also bring Google Street View, walking directions, location sharing and Public Transit information according to Apple Insider.

Updated 11/6/2008
Mac Rumors has obtained new photos of the 2.2 firmware update for the iPhone and iPod touch which confirm over-the-air (OTA) podcast downloads. According to the article, which was obtained information from a German source, OTA podcasts downloads are limited to 10MB in size when not using WiFi.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
uhm ok
By Soldier38 on 10/29/2008 8:33:38 PM , Rating: 5
but where in the hell is Flash support and MMS support. The 2 biggest features soo lacking in my iphone??? FIX IT!




RE: uhm ok
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/29/2008 8:41:25 PM , Rating: 5
We need COPY/PASTE


RE: uhm ok
By Chaser on 11/6/2008 1:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
Nearly every phone with a camera has MMS capability. Except the feature rich iPhone. Its ridculous.


RE: uhm ok
By TomZ on 11/6/2008 2:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, you cannot have these features on an iPhone until "King Steve" decides it will be so.


RE: uhm ok
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 2:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
Just a thought.. but is it harder to highlight text on the iphone as you don't have a stylus? Perhaps this is why Apple decided to leave copy/paste out for now..


RE: uhm ok
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/6/2008 2:38:19 PM , Rating: 3
No, you an already zoom and move the cursor around the text in its current form. All they need to do is implement the ability to highlight and copy.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2mza895.jpg


RE: uhm ok
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 2:55:48 PM , Rating: 1
There must be a reason they left it out, perhaps a program isolation issue? I could see this being a security flaw that Apple dev's just did not want to dive into.


RE: uhm ok
By kelmon on 11/7/2008 4:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
Copy/Paste is almost certainly more important than MMS, not least because the iPhone has a full email client that you can use to send, well, anything. I'm quite convinced that MMS is a technology that will be replaced as phones evolve and incorporate proper email, which is far more flexible.

Yes, I know that this is a pain right now but then Apple have never been shy at dropping technology.

* Continues to cry over the loss of Firewire *


RE: uhm ok
By omnicronx on 11/6/2008 2:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
Flash is a closed source proprietary piece of software i.e it needs to be licensed and it can't be reverse engineered. As of mid october Apple stated that they do not plan on releasing flash or silverlight to the iphone anytime soon.
Which I find kind of funny, as Adobe flat out said they would develop a version for Apple, if they were permitted to do so.

P.S My friend has a jailbroke Iphone which has MMS enabled for those that can't live without it.


RE: uhm ok
By jjunos on 11/6/2008 3:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
thanks for trying, but wrong.

Adobe (probably seeing these issues) has attempted to open up flash completely (meaning removing licensing issues, relaxing restrictions, and more). I'm not saying it's perfect, but flash has come a LONG way from a few years ago. This isn't an issue with Flash/adobe, this is an issue with Apple.

But hell, don't believe me, how about doing some actual RESEARCH on it.

http://www.openscreenproject.org/


RE: uhm ok
By kelmon on 11/7/2008 4:30:44 AM , Rating: 1
It might just have something to do with the fact that Adobe seems incapable of developing a Flash client for the Mac platform (and, let's be fair here, that's exactly what the iPhone is) that makes efficient use of the processor. Put Flash on the iPhone and you can kiss goodbye to battery.

When Adobe finally makes a Flash client that runs at least as well as the Windows versions, then we can talk about letting them loose with the iPhone. In the meantime, you're better off without it.

Silverlight can take a long walk off a short cliff.


RE: uhm ok
By foolsgambit11 on 11/7/2008 7:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the problem can be blamed on the processor for all Mac platforms - the desktop and laptop lines use Intel processors. The problem is with the OS (and the iPhone/iPod Touch run a stripped down OS X, so you're right that it's basically a Mac platform - maybe the only non x86 OS X platform out there right now?)

Now I do agree that Flash is a fairly resource-intensive application, and that it could be a battery drain (if it could even work at all). You're right about that. I always figured it was a lack of power that made them leave that out. But then, it can do video playback, and that can be a power-hog, too.


RE: uhm ok
By tjr508 on 11/6/2008 10:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
I just sent a pic last night and it took until this morning to figure out that they didn't get it because they were using an iphone.


Patent infringment?
By RabidDog on 10/29/2008 1:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but if the author of Podster patented the product, wouldn't Apple have to answer for this?

Odds are a patent was not filed, which is a shame. This is exactly the reason you have a patent on an innovation. Kinda putting the shoe on the other foot.




RE: Patent infringment?
By RabidDog on 10/29/2008 1:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
That should read...Podcaster...not Podster.


RE: Patent infringment?
By othercents on 10/29/2008 1:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt it especially since the iPhone could already play podcasts and adding the functionality directly to the phone was probably already slated for the design of the iPhone. Plus there is probably a clause for developers that keeps them from being able to sue which allows Apple to reject any application, so that they can add that functionality into their product.

Other


RE: Patent infringment?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/29/2008 2:35:25 PM , Rating: 3
This is what the Developer terms of use has to say:
quote:
"Nothing in this Agreement will impair Apple’s right to develop, acquire, license, market, promote or distribute products, software or technologies that perform the same or similar functions as, or otherwise compete with, any other products, software or technologies that you may develop, produce, market, or distribute. In the absence of a separate written agreement to the contrary, Apple will be free to use any information, suggestions or recommendations you provide to Apple pursuant to this Agreement for any purpose, subject to any applicable patents or copyrights."
So, yes, there's a little bit at the end about 'subject to any applicable patents or copyrights'. But still, I think he'd lose the fight to argue that his idea was patentable.

The whole thing is ridiculous, really. Sometimes you want apps to function differently than Apple made them function. Technically, for instance, you could probably use the iPhone calculator to do complex math by expanding Taylor Series by hand, but wouldn't you rather have a scientific calculator app? But would that app substantially duplicate functions already present for the iPhone?


RE: Patent infringment?
By bjacobson on 11/6/2008 1:34:03 PM , Rating: 3
Apple knows better than you. You paid $400 for the privilege to be told what you want. :)


RE: Patent infringment?
By UNCjigga on 10/29/2008 1:22:40 PM , Rating: 3
That makes as much sense as MagicPad/iCopy suing Apple if they eventually put copy & paste on the iPhone. There was no real "innovation" on PodCaster's part--they essentially made an Apple service accessible on an Apple product. Granted, why Apple didn't include either functionality to begin with is beyond me.

I do think that Apple is taking too much of an authoritarian stance with the iPhone/iPod platform and it might hinder 3rd-party innovation. Not a good stance to be taking with Android, Symbian and other open source projects in the wings.


RE: Patent infringment?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/29/2008 2:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
They have the market position now to be draconian. People have developed apps to do most of the things people want to do with a phone-MID-iPod-in-one. For the average user, there won't be much of a difference between an iPhone and an Android-based phone when it comes to OS and program functionality. There may be some specialty niches that will get filled on Android or Symbian that might be left unfilled on the iPhone, but for the vast majority of people it won't be available programs that is key to their decision.

They will decide based on cellular service provider offering the phone. They will decide based on device form factor. They will decide on physical keyboard vs. virtual keyboard. They will decide based on the chic factor. As they get more savvy, they might start deciding based on reliability, and in that field, Apple could have an advantage by having a closed platform.

Apple is slowly adding the functionality people would like to the iPhone. I personally can't wait for 2.2 for my iPod Touch. Most of my listening these days is podcasts, and not having to sync to get them onto the Touch will be a real boon. 'And we're all on the lookout for enormous boons.' (Of course, when I bought the Touch I assumed this functionality was included - I mean, it had iTunes on the phone. Who knew that meant only the iTunes Store part of iTunes? (Incidentally, I think that's the argument for Podcaster not being patentable. Patents have to be non-obvious, and Podcaster is obvious. So obvious I assumed it would be included.))