We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it • Hacker News Board

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#231

Post by sixbrx » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 2:46 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #157

ekianjo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And going "nuclear" on Android because they felt that their iOS was soooo original it should be protected by all patents, trademarks and laws in place. Apple is the Disney of IT, seriously.

It was so original. I can't believe anyone contests this. I remember seeing an iPhone for the first time. Compared to all other phones it was 10 years ahead in vision. All other phones were suddenly ludicrously laid out, with stupid designs. Even the settings section for the iPhone blew every single other phone in existence out of the water. Something that simple, that essential, had been revolutionised by this thoug…

Yeah I remember also there was so much gnashing of teeth that it didn't HAVE A TACTILE KEYBOARD! It's just for show OMG! Japanese phones have had more gizmos^H^H^H^H^H^H features like FOREVER!!

Besides the interface, I thought it was interesting that it had a real unix based OS underneath, which would pay off in the future as phone processors became more powerful.

It's sortof funny looking back. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#232

Post by eli » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 2:51 PM UTC

millerc wrote: post #217

saurik wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the movie came with the full set of trailers (preview, theatrical, etc.) for the movie? And had a director's commentary track? With a second audio track that had the actors telling jokes? Or even just take all of the funny moments that happened while filming, where people missed their lines, and put them on the same DVD? Maybe they could even throw in an entirely different ending for the movie that was replac…

> What if the movie came with the full set of trailers (preview, theatrical, etc.) [...] could even throw in an entirely different ending for the movie [...] Awesome idea! Throw this in a locked device with some kind of DRM to make sure our viewer has a fully immersive uniform experience, and I'm ready to throw my life savings at it. (Apologies for that, I couldn't resist pointing out to you where that train of thoug…

DVDs seem to still be selling pretty well, despite utterly and completely broken DRM.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#233

Post by petercooper » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 2:55 PM UTC

Add a flashlight or fart button to it. "Needs more flashlight" should be the "needs more cowbell" of our age.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#234

Post by loceng » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 2:58 PM UTC

An app like Flappy Birds will pass, but this won't? sigh

Reason makes me feel like they don't want you competing with an area they're going to go into.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#235

Post by coldtea » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 2:59 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #230

coldtea wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, as long as users could not care less, it doesn't count as "absurd tyrannical control" in my books.

s/users/most users/g If I want to install software on a device that I bought, I should not need to jailbreak it. If I want to install software on a device that I bought, I should not need to buy a developer's license.

Well, in the abstract I agree.

But if the platform was built by someone else, he gets to set the rules.

And if the rules are lax enough, like the App Store is, and people using the platform dont mind much, then we don't have much of a case.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#236

Post by willcodeforfoo » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:02 PM UTC

I had an idea like this once: http://lifemetric.com/

I always wanted to make an app for it, but it looks like yours is pretty nice. Just add some more features and Apple will probably accept it.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#237

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:03 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #235

MereInterest wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/users/most users/g If I want to install software on a device that I bought, I should not need to jailbreak it. If I want to install software on a device that I bought, I should not need to buy a developer's license.

Well, in the abstract I agree. But if the platform was built by someone else, he gets to set the rules. And if the rules are lax enough, like the App Store is, and people using the platform dont mind much, then we don't have much of a case.

That's disingenuous. Other platforms are open; Apple sets the rules because they closed the platform. Their excuse for this was to improve security and reliability(?) SO now they're curating based on subjective standards of questionable merit.

If the app meets reliability and design standards, why not let the market decide? Its arrogance.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#238

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:05 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #233

Add a flashlight or fart button to it. "Needs more flashlight" should be the "needs more cowbell" of our age.

Ironic: to satisfy Apple, the mecca for good design, you have to crap up your application.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#239

Post by Touche » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:05 PM UTC

sferoze wrote: post #223

Touche wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people continue to use this terrible analogy? The App Store is not like Walmart. A better analogy would be a car company that forced you to come to them for all of your service and for any after-market work you wanted to do.

Your analogy only address's the issue form the consumers point of view. What about if you make a product, should you be able to force a distributor to carry your product?

No, you shouldn't, and never did I suggest that. I was addressing your claim that we should think about the App Store like a retailer; which it isn't.

Re: We made something. We use it. We love it. Apple rejected it

#240

Post by ikurei » Thu, Feb 13, 2014, 3:14 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #157

ekianjo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And going "nuclear" on Android because they felt that their iOS was soooo original it should be protected by all patents, trademarks and laws in place. Apple is the Disney of IT, seriously.

It was so original. I can't believe anyone contests this. I remember seeing an iPhone for the first time. Compared to all other phones it was 10 years ahead in vision. All other phones were suddenly ludicrously laid out, with stupid designs. Even the settings section for the iPhone blew every single other phone in existence out of the water. Something that simple, that essential, had been revolutionised by this thoug…

It blew every other phone, but it wasn't that original over PDAs. I had a Windows 6.5 pda then, and I thought the iPhone was way cooler and well-designed. Of course it was inmensely superior to my PDA, but not so incredibly original. It didn't do anything at all I wasn't already doing with PDAs, it just did some of them (chiefly, web browsing) way better, most of them in a cooler way (pinch to zoom, animations), and even a few, slightly worse (browsing while listening to music).

Apple has this fame of original crazy geniouses that have invented X or Y. They have mostly taken other's ideas and perfected them. Perfected them a lot, admittedly; even may be taken them to a new level of awesomeness with a great vision of on which details it was better to improve.

I love apple products, don't take me wrong. They deserve a lot of credit for the iPod, the iPhone, iOS, the iPad...

I think it was extremely childish of Jobs to get so pissed.