Apple going up against antitrust attack?

[Scott_Arm]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJdjFoLD5vBSkguGO

To be honest, as much as I really like using apple hardware and software, I hate the company more and more every day. It was an outrageously stupid move to disallow third party tools and APIs in the name of ensuring quality.

What do you guys think of this move? Did Apple do wrong, and is it worth an antitrust suit?

[Arwin]

My take is that Apple is streamlining and automating reviewing App Store submissions, which are growing every day. The easiest way to do so is by being strict in what's allowed. The reason for wanting to do so is clear: the quality of the apps has a strong impact on the user experience, in terms of ease of use, battery life, and stability. Another good reason for tightening up on this now is that with the iPad and iPhone OS 4.0 around the corner bringing more multi-tasking features things are getting even more complex when it comes to testing.

I think it is not illegal to have a 'closed' platform in this regard, or where would for instance Nintendo and Sony be with the DS and PSP?

So in the strictest sense, I don't know that Apple did wrong. What I dislike most is that I have to buy a Mac in order to be able to develop for the system, but even that I think would hold up in a court of law (again look at Nintendo or Sony).

In a less strict sense, the market will prove who's right or wrong. There are enough viable competitors that do things differently so that if they go too far in closing things down, they'll suffer the consequences.

What I think will be interesting, is whether we'll see third party tools that simply generate XCode project files for multi-platform projects. Impossible for Apple to check or to outlaw, and could still be pretty eas to do.

[Scott_Arm]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Apple is banning. My understanding was 3rd party APIs and cross-platform development tools were being nixed, so everyone had to write using native API directly.

Wouldn't it be incorrect to say that is the situation with game consoles? Yes, they are closed platforms, but companies can write middleware and API wrapping tools to simply development and/or cross-platform development.

[Sxotty]

The specific topic seems like they could have chosen a better tact to tread, but either way it is good that Apple doesn't get a free pass anymore.

[rpg.314]

Anything that can discipline Jobs' mob is welcome.

I doubt though, FTC/DoJ would get anywhere in this regard.

[Florin]

I can think of a few things that are harmful to the industry and consumers alike and might deserve scrutiny when it comes to Apple, like the iTunes/iPod tie-in (both sit at what, 80%+ of their respective markets?), not licensing encrypted AAC files to third party music device makers, turning off the WMA support which is in the iPod hardware, using their music store business to boost their App Store, their exclusive telecom deals for the iPhone (and related simlocking), and the damn proprietary connectors on all sorts of devices.

This though? I don't know. If they had like a majority marketshare with their iPhone OS, maybe..

[Blazkowicz]

as we thought apple invented the computer with the restrictions of a console, now it's worse than a console.
they obviously don't care, as their target, the mass consumer, is oblivious of all that.

I hope adobe releases a linux version of Photoshop, supported on red hat, suse and ubuntu LTS. With distros becoming good-looking, easier to use than Windows and OSX (at least they keep a taskbar), and potentially game-changing ubuntu 10.04 releases, such a move would make OSX and Macs less useful.

[Silent_Buddha]

What I think will be interesting, is whether we'll see third party tools that simply generate XCode project files for multi-platform projects. Impossible for Apple to check or to outlaw, and could still be pretty eas to do.

That's exactly the type of stuff that Apple is banning/prohibiting. For example, Flash applications directly ported to XCode will be banned/not approved from now on. Applications must be written natively in XCode. Any application that uses an automated tool, for example, to generate XCode from a cross platform application will be disallowed/not approved.

Apple is basically seeking vendor/hardware/application/consumer lock-in. So it's a step beyond consoles where cross platform applications are still welcome.

Regards,
SB

[Arwin]

That's exactly the type of stuff that Apple is banning/prohibiting. For example, Flash applications directly ported to XCode will be banned/not approved from now on.

No I don't think so? What Apple is banning is a flash application that runs on a version of the Flash runtime for the iPhone.

Applications must be written natively in XCode. Any application that uses an automated tool, for example, to generate XCode from a cross platform application will be disallowed/not approved.

Again, no. Anything that is able to interpret code at runtime or through an API is banned. Not tools that actually generate native XCode that is then compiled. So if I write libraries for instance that work exactly like Microsoft's .NET Framework (Mono), and I have my programs in C# or VB.Net using .NET Framework libraries that interpret these programs so that they can run on the iPhone, or if I write a C64 emulator that can read and execute C64 native binaries, or if I write a Python or even Basic interpreter, all these things are outlawed.

But if I wrote an application in .NET and I have a framework that translates my .NET sourcefiles to actual XCode files, then Apple can neither ban nor even see that. There is no difference to be seen between this and an application that was actually developed in the XCode environment.

Apple is basically seeking vendor/hardware/application/consumer lock-in. So it's a step beyond consoles where cross platform applications are still welcome.

Regards,
SB

Yes, I can see your point here.

[eastmen]

I'm glad this is finally happening. I never understood why the goverment and people were up in arms that windows came with IE and yet osx comes with Ithis and Ithat. When you buy an apple computer there really is no reason to go out and lookfor anyone else's software.

I hope the goverment probes all of thier busniess dealings and not just this iphone suff

[Florin]

I'm glad this is finally happening. I never understood why the goverment and people were up in arms that windows came with IE and yet osx comes with Ithis and Ithat.

Now now, you make it sound as if this is somehow a complicated issue. But Apple does not have a monopoly position in operating systems to abuse to push their browser/web portal/search engine. So wonder no more.

Oh and by the way, this investigation doesn't even relate to OSX, and/or the bundling of applications for that matter.

So yeah, the funny thing about antitrust. Not everybody qualifies. I can see you don't like it, but that's the law.

[Silent_Buddha]

No I don't think so? What Apple is banning is a flash application that runs on a version of the Flash runtime for the iPhone.

I can't directly comment on the rest as I haven't read much beyond the current head to head with Adobe.

But Adobe has an application that generates native XCode for Flash applications. Apple is banning/not approving all applications from this.

Thus Adobe has stopped all developement on that application.

Regards,
SB

[eastmen]

Now now, you make it sound as if this is somehow a complicated issue. But Apple does not have a monopoly position in operating systems to abuse to push their browser/web portal/search engine. So wonder no more.

Oh and by the way, this investigation doesn't even relate to OSX, and/or the bundling of applications for that matter.

So yeah, the funny thing about antitrust. Not everybody qualifies. I can see you don't like it, but that's the law.

Apple does have a monopoly.

If you want to run OSX you have to buy from apple. If you want to develop for OSX , Iphone , Ipad you have to buy from apple. If you want to use apple products you have to buy apple hardware.

I know it doesn't relate , i hope its something they explore when they are investigating this case

[Silent_Buddha]

Now now, you make it sound as if this is somehow a complicated issue. But Apple does not have a monopoly position in operating systems to abuse to push their browser/web portal/search engine. So wonder no more.

Oh and by the way, this investigation doesn't even relate to OSX, and/or the bundling of applications for that matter.

So yeah, the funny thing about antitrust. Not everybody qualifies. I can see you don't like it, but that's the law.

Yeah I love how the law punishes those that do a good job. And encourages those that can't do a good job. :) In the case of MS, forcing MS to foot the marketing bill for it's competition. Since evidently anyone other than MS, Firefox, Apple, and Google can't figure out a way to get people to use their browsers en mass.

And from MS continuing to bleed marketshare at a fairly rapid pace to it's largest rivals, that so called OS monopoly isn't much of an advantage.

Anyway, off topic, but BS is still BS whether it's covered up by anti-success laws or not. Back in the mid-90's you certainly had a case with MS using leverage (but even then it was Netscape screwing the pooch rather than MS pushing them out). In the 2000's that just doesn't exist.

Regards,
SB

[Squilliam]

I can't directly comment on the rest as I haven't read much beyond the current head to head with Adobe.

But Adobe has an application that generates native XCode for Flash applications. Apple is banning/not approving all applications from this.

Thus Adobe has stopped all developement on that application.

Regards,
SB

Surely it must still come with an accent? If it was truly indistinguishable like a Russian spy with a perfect Georgian accent then it can be accepted into the ecosystem in spite of the fact that its really an unwanted interloper. How many Russian spies successfully operated without the proper understanding of the linguistics and vice versa, how many American CIA agents operated within Russia without a perfect accent and back-story match? If it was truly as native as they claim then Apple wouldn't have a hope in keeping the applications at bay which are cross platform.

[Florin]

Apple does have a monopoly.

If you want to run OSX you have to buy from apple. If you want to develop for OSX , Iphone , Ipad you have to buy from apple. If you want to use apple products you have to buy apple hardware.

I know it doesn't relate , i hope its something they explore when they are investigating this case

A monopoly is about market share though. So it may well apply to say, iPods and iTunes. But for personal computers? Not anywhere close. If you don't want to pay Apple you can easily live with something else.

On the other hand, just try running some serious business without being able to deal with Excel and Word files. Or for that matter try finding staff trained on anything but Windows and Outlook.

Not illegal by itself, but they keep trying to leverage the existing monoculture to push into new areas. Like servers, and smartphones, and online services, and content delivery etc etc. Bad boys.

[Florin]

Yeah I love how the law punishes those that do a good job.

Well, if you consider illegal activity a good job, sure. Fortunately not everyone thinks that crime should be rewarded.

And from MS continuing to bleed marketshare at a fairly rapid pace to it's largest rivals, that so called OS monopoly isn't much of an advantage.

Eh, which rivals are that? All other OSs combined don't make up for 10% of marketshare. How is that bleeding?

The only serious rivals that MS has are their own products. XP is bleeding to Win7. Office 2003 is losing to 2007. Either way you stay comfortably in the fold :)

[Scott_Arm]

No I don't think so? What Apple is banning is a flash application that runs on a version of the Flash runtime for the iPhone.

Again, no. Anything that is able to interpret code at runtime or through an API is banned. Not tools that actually generate native XCode that is then compiled. So if I write libraries for instance that work exactly like Microsoft's .NET Framework (Mono), and I have my programs in C# or VB.Net using .NET Framework libraries that interpret these programs so that they can run on the iPhone, or if I write a C64 emulator that can read and execute C64 native binaries, or if I write a Python or even Basic interpreter, all these things are outlawed.

But if I wrote an application in .NET and I have a framework that translates my .NET sourcefiles to actual XCode files, then Apple can neither ban nor even see that. There is no difference to be seen between this and an application that was actually developed in the XCode environment.


Yes, I can see your point here.

Reading up on this more, it seems you are right. I misunderstood the changes to the developer agreement.

[Sxotty]

Florin MS is bleeding market share in other areas. Their search obviously isn't doing great. And lots of people are using open office, google docs, and so on when in the past they were not.

I personally think the anti-trust laws are somewhat misinterpreted. Of course at least now OSX no longer has 100% marketshare on macs thanks to boot camp :p

[Blazkowicz]

I can't directly comment on the rest as I haven't read much beyond the current head to head with Adobe.

But Adobe has an application that generates native XCode for Flash applications. Apple is banning/not approving all applications from this.

Thus Adobe has stopped all developement on that application.

Regards,
SB

exactly. the limitation on scripting languages was an old story, but now they're explicitly banning any translation layer, or wrapper. You have to directly use Apple's APIs and not an API that will use their API, even if it results in native code.

Let's imagine you write a function that warns the user of an error, using maybe Makefiles and the C preprocessor ( #ifdef, #ifndef ). on the Unix console, it will write to stderr, using printf. on windows, it will pop up a dialog, using the win32 API. on the iphone it uses Apple's API.
That's banned by Apple as far as I can understand.

[Arwin]

exactly. the limitation on scripting languages was an old story, but now they're explicitly banning any translation layer, or wrapper. You have to directly use Apple's APIs and not an API that will use their API, even if it results in native code.

Yes - no translation layer either at runtime or through an included API.

Let's imagine you write a function that warns the user of an error, using maybe Makefiles and the C preprocessor ( #ifdef, #ifndef ). on the Unix console, it will write to stderr, using printf. on windows, it will pop up a dialog, using the win32 API. on the iphone it uses Apple's API.
That's banned by Apple as far as I can understand.

No. But say an API exists that accepts DirectX function calls from your iPhone application and translates them to the OpenGL commands you can use on the iPhone, that is an example of something that is now being explicitly denied I think.

SDL is another interesting example - SDL uses documented C libraries that are accepted by Apple, but that does not mean it is going to be accepted itself per se. It's not really perfect for iPhone development, granted, but it will be interesting to see if it can stay or if it has to go.

[Colourless]

The EULA is stating that you are NOT allowed to use any source code that wasn't originally written in C, C++ or Objective C, regadless of whether they can detect what you've coded in or not.

This is killing Mono touch, that uses ahead of time compilation to convert from C# into an ARM binary.

Even if another language was used, say pascal and you used a pascal to C++ source converter, it would still be against the EULA because the source wasn't originally one of the allowed languages.

Of course this will screw up anyone using something like Flex or yacc in their project. Those create C code from source files that aren't C.... OMG RUN!

...

[Colourless]

Other slight issue is that Apple wants end to end control of the platform.

You need to use an Apple computer to make applications for the Apple IPhone (no technical reason for this)
You need to use the Apple development tools to make applications (no technical reason for this)
You need to use one of the Apple approved languages to make applications (no technical reason for this)
You need to use the Apple approved APIs to make applications (acceptable for quality control standards)
You need to sell your applications using the Apple store (no technical reaons for this)

That is a list of things that would could get you into trouble. It is similar to the way console development works, but you don't need to use only the prescribed language, nor are you forced to sell through platform owner.

[Arwin]

Other slight issue is that Apple wants end to end control of the platform.

You need to use an Apple computer to make applications for the Apple IPhone (no technical reason for this)

Although this one bugs me the most so far (I bought a Mac Mini for this reason alone), there is a clear technical reason for this, rooted in the same reason for not having OS/X available outside of Macs - Apple has chosen to only but thoroughly test specific hardware. This has advantages and disadvantages. I think Apple would gain a lot now if they started supporting other hardware with OS/X, more than they could ever gain from just selling Apple hardware.

Even then, now that I have a Mac it is clear to me that there are various more hidden technical aspects, like issues with Font rendering on non-Mac screens.

You need to use the Apple development tools to make applications (no technical reason for this)

What do you mean with this? You can write programs in C, C++ or Objective-C and you can do that with any editor? Or do you mean building your applications specifically? XCode does not even appear in the EULA.

The reality though is, at least from what I've experienced and am reading from other Mac and iPhone developers, that XCode is simply rather good.

You need to use one of the Apple approved languages to make applications (no technical reason for this)

But on the other hand they are C, C++ and Objective C. They are not some kind of weird outlandish custom languages! For an embedded platform, this does not seem to me to be a stupid limitation.

You need to use the Apple approved APIs to make applications (acceptable for quality control standards)

This is basically the same on Android though!

You need to sell your applications using the Apple store (no technical reaons for this)

This is true, but the consoles don't currently allow alternative online stores (although they are experimenting with some form of sale through Amazon I think).

In a more limited scale, you can develop apps that are only available to specific iphones (my basic development licence allows 100 devices, higher numbers are available) that you can authorize for your own software. This way you can in fact provide software in other ways than through the App-Store. A company can purchase this licence, then purchase software from me directly, and then distribute custom (bought) software to these devices it manages.

Not ideal or completely free of course, but worth mentioning as its often overlooked.

That is a list of things that would could get you into trouble. It is similar to the way console development works, but you don't need to use only the prescribed language, nor are you forced to sell through platform owner.

All combined they can get you into about as much trouble as it keeps you out of, I'm thinking, so I guess its all about what kind of trouble you prefer. We'll find out whether or not other platforms move more into Apple's direction, or vice versa, or they stay the same and we'll see a divide between different types of users with different types of needs.

[eastmen]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/ellen-pokes-fun-at-apple-and-then-apologizes/

apple is getting way to full of itself

[Entropy]

I think there is an interesting fundamental question buried here. In response to the original post by Scott_Arm, I think we need to consider the last, and by Jobs own words, the most important reason they don't want Flash on their platform.
Thus quoth Jobs:
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms.

As far as I can see, the points Jobs makes are perfectly valid. And it must have been particularly vexing to have developed the new APIs of OS4, only to have them side-stepped by Adobes new flash tool. Of course, there are points in favour of cross-platform tools that he chooses not to make.

So the question becomes: what are the points in favour of cross-platform development tools, and as a consumer, what approach brings me the greatest benefit?

As far as I can see, if you use cross-platform tools and actually want your app to work well across platform (which was the point after all) your applications needs to be based on the lowest common denominator. The main benefit to the consumer is that he/she is likely to have a wide selection of low-cost devices to run these apps, which still allow differentiation in terms of cosmetic design, battery life, et cetera. The added difficulty for a platform vendor to offer strong added value and differentiation discourages innovation and helps commoditizing the market. To a company like Apple this is bad. To me as a consumer, well, it depends. If these classes of products were basically set in stone in terms of functionality, (such as cell phones where when they all competed on size, battery life and reception quality) I'd be all for the strongest possible downward push in price. But that is not the case - for some time more I prefer competing platforms battling it out, pushing new ideas, building new and hopefully better environments, going under and being absorbed, their best attributes living on under different names. I don't pretend to know which of Android, iPhoneOS, Windows Phone7, Palm WebOS (under HPs wings), Maemo or any other will emerge dominant in 10 years. I actually hope none of them take more than 70% of the market, pushing innovation and competition in terms of best possible user environment for as long as possible.

For me, as a consumer, for these types of devices at this point in time, I want the individual platforms to be as distinct as possible. While there are caveats, Apples stance that "If you want to sell your application on our platform, it should be made for our platform", actually makes sense for the consumer, not only their corporate coffers.


(PS. The above changes if content starts to be locked to a platform, in which case the consumer needs to be observant and ideally move to other platforms.)

[Arwin]

One of the thing about Flash that has bothered me (apart from its instability in general, instability for multi-tasking, being very processor demanding, being memory hungry, and generally being used for annoying ads or stilly game-related websites ;) ) is indeed that support for non-Windows platforms (not to mention non-Intel processors ... ) really just isn't ... great (although some slight improvements have been made here and there of late, but they are always and only purely driven by whatever Adobe things is good for their bottom-line, and it's not pleasant to be at the whim of that)

Nothing would please me more than if HTML5 (or any other properly open standard) can replace Flash altogether.

[rpg.314]

1) How does embedding a lua interpreter in your native app, and exposing iPhone API's to it hinder the platform? Why is it banned then?

2) It is a developer's call, whether to stick to inferior cross platform apps or to make native apps. Apple is restricting this choice with it's latest dirty tricks. Which is exactly the problem.

3) The cross platform excuse is a lame one. The real deal is that by forbidding embedded interpreters as well, they want to kill Android/WP7.

[Lonbjerg]

A monopoly is about market share though. So it may well apply to say, iPods and iTunes. But for personal computers? Not anywhere close. If you don't want to pay Apple you can easily live with something else.

On the other hand, just try running some serious business without being able to deal with Excel and Word files. Or for that matter try finding staff trained on anything but Windows and Outlook.

Not illegal by itself, but they keep trying to leverage the existing monoculture to push into new areas. Like servers, and smartphones, and online services, and content delivery etc etc. Bad boys.

Problem is that Apple insist that their MAC's are not PC's...so either they must conside to the fact that a MAC just is a (overpriced) PC...or admit to being a monoply on MAC's...

Either solution would hurt their ego ;)

[pcchen]

Sometimes I couldn't help to think that Apple may be repeating history here. After decades of "Wintel" dominance, smart phones are currently the most likely platform to be able to put a dent on it. However, I seriously doubt that this can be done with a single company which wants to control everything. Of course, if Apple is able to do that, then good for them. However, IMHO Apple risks going into a second Mac if they continue this way, and Android (or even Microsoft) may actually win this round.

We already seen that iPhone OS becomes successful not because Apple provided a lot of good applications, but because many third parties provided good applications. There are many unexpected applications, such as the Ocarina, games utilizing the accelerometers, a dB meter, or even a gay finding application using geographic locators (I saw that on Top Gear :P ). This is possible by giving freedom to developers. As you can see, J2ME were there years before iPhone OS, but applications on J2ME are always pretty limited. Now Apple looks like they are going the J2ME way.

[Lonbjerg]

They might have overlooked Intel:
http://anandtech.com/show/3696/intel-unveils-moorestown-and-the-atom-z600-series-the-fastest-smartphone-processor

[Entropy]

2) It is a developer's call, whether to stick to inferior cross platform apps or to make native apps. Apple is restricting this choice with it's latest dirty tricks. Which is exactly the problem.


This is the core of the issue. You may think it is the call of the developer. Apple says that it isn't as far as their platform is concerned.

Why, exactly, would it be better for the consumer, if cross platform development tools were allowed? (Read Flash, because that is really the issue here, Apples policy is simply sweeping enough not to allow it to be easily sidestepped).
I'm a middle-aged computational scientist with no particular axe to grind here - I can see that there are pros and cons, but my experience of similar devices makes me sympathetic to Apples position here. I can change my mind if presented with good arguments. "Apple is teh evil" however, doesn't cut it.

[rpg.314]

I'm a middle-aged computational scientist with no particular axe to grind here - I can see that there are pros and cons, but my experience of similar devices makes me sympathetic to Apples position here. I can change my mind if presented with good arguments. "Apple is teh evil" however, doesn't cut it.

Answer 1) then. :smile:

[pcchen]

This is the core of the issue. You may think it is the call of the developer. Apple says that it isn't as far as their platform is concerned.

Why, exactly, would it be better for the consumer, if cross platform development tools were allowed?

I think there is a problem here. For example, there are many Japanese "interactive novel" developers who already have their own script engine. Can they port their engines to iPhone OS? It's not very clear on how Apple would react. Unless it's very clear, I don't think it's reasonable to put any resources into this. Therefore, this is bad for the consumer (because they can't play these "interactive novels" on iPad).

Further, if I want to put some "downloadable" contents to feed my interactive novel engine, will it be allowed? Again, it's not clear. You don't really want to put 6 months developing something that ultimately rejected by Apple.

[Entropy]

I think there is a problem here. For example, there are many Japanese "interactive novel" developers who already have their own script engine. Can they port their engines to iPhone OS? It's not very clear on how Apple would react. Unless it's very clear, I don't think it's reasonable to put any resources into this. Therefore, this is bad for the consumer (because they can't play these "interactive novels" on iPad).

Further, if I want to put some "downloadable" contents to feed my interactive novel engine, will it be allowed? Again, it's not clear. You don't really want to put 6 months developing something that ultimately rejected by Apple.

So I'd suggest they simply ask Apple if it would be OK.
IF not, then they face the question of whether they should recode using Apple approved means, or simply not offer their wares on the platform.
(Incidentally, if I understand you correctly, this is an example of where content is locked to a particular reader app - which is a dodgy proposition for the consumer in the first place.)

But it examplifies the issue - if there are apps that aren't ported to the iDevices due to recoding concerns, Apple will loose revenue and marketshare as some of their customers turn to other platforms to access those apps. This isn't a mystery to either us or Apple. On the other hand, Apple will have a better controlled environment with less likelyhood of "bad neighbours" souring the user experience of their products, which will hopefully attract users. It's a balance, and if this is truly a big problem then Apple will overall loose market share.

It may well be that Apple is OK with that. They have shown time and again that they achieve what they do partly by not trying to serve everyone and do everything. That they offer a single iPhone vs. the 50 or so models that Nokia offers their customers is hugely limiting for their customers if you want to look at it that way. But this is their Modus Operandi.

[Arwin]

I think there is a problem here. For example, there are many Japanese "interactive novel" developers who already have their own script engine. Can they port their engines to iPhone OS? It's not very clear on how Apple would react. Unless it's very clear, I don't think it's reasonable to put any resources into this. Therefore, this is bad for the consumer (because they can't play these "interactive novels" on iPad).

Further, if I want to put some "downloadable" contents to feed my interactive novel engine, will it be allowed? Again, it's not clear. You don't really want to put 6 months developing something that ultimately rejected by Apple.

I agree with Entropy, just contact Apple. There's a Marvel Comics application on the iPhone as well that allows free comic downloads as well as in-app purchases. It seems to have the exact same kind of scripts you're discussing here. (Good free modern Ironman comic on there I used as a test)

(which prompted me to test if I could use it, and I can get anything with it - which makes me wonder why the Comics Reader on PSP can't be made available to me :( )

[pcchen]

I agree with Entropy, just contact Apple. There's a Marvel Comics application on the iPhone as well that allows free comic downloads as well as in-app purchases. It seems to have the exact same kind of scripts you're discussing here. (Good free modern Ironman comic on there I used as a test)

But to be honest Apple's reputation is not very good at this. There are stories that an app was selling on AppStore for several versions then suddenly rejected for an arbitrary reason. Sometimes there are also conflict of interests, such as the case of Google Voice.

Of course, as Entropy said, there are good sides and bad sides here. After all, personal computers are still different from mobile phones. Right now, Apple has the upperhand here, but it could change very quickly if some competition builds up fast.

[Scott_Arm]

Class-action lawsuit against Apple going ahead. This one is related to the exclusive deal with AT&T for iPhone.

http://www.cultofmac.com/judge-oks-anti-trust-lawsuit-against-apple-att/50460