• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • Podcaster Blocked From Distribution Outside App Store
    When Alex Sokirynsky's Podcaster App was rejected from the AppStore by Apple because "... Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes," Sokirynsky came up with a solution: distribute Podcaster via ad-hoc.



    It was good while it lasted but now Apple has shut that down as well. Originally Sokirynsky was able to create new sets of Podcaster 100 at a time to send out to whomever donated $10. Apple apparently doesn't like that business plan much and has removed the "remove device" link in Sokirynsky's account on the Apple developer website. Clicking that link is one of the necessary steps to get a new set of Podcaster out the gates and into donators hands.

    For now Sokirynsky believes that all the previously distributed versions of Podcaster will still work so users that donated and received a copy wont be SOL. Sokirynsky also plans on making an update and distributing to all of those that purchased a copy of Pocaster after he tests it on his personal phone -- he does warn to keep a copy of version 1.0.8b just in case.

    The future of Podcaster is looking grim as far as the AppStore goes but it doesn't appear that the app is going away any time soon. Sokirynsky plans on making Podcaster for the Andriod platform and is also looking into the possibly of bringing Podcaster to Jailbroken iPhones.
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Podcaster Blocked From Distribution Outside App Store started by Cody Overcash View original post
    Comments 13 Comments
    1. MetallicaFan1991's Avatar
      MetallicaFan1991 -
      There's so many calculator and weather apps. I'm sure they're duplicating the "Calculator" and "Weather" app aswell, aren't they??
    1. ksong12's Avatar
      ksong12 -
      True dat.
    1. tattoojack's Avatar
      tattoojack -
      so if you can get podcasts on itunes, what the he11 is the point in this app?
      itunes charges and this only requires one time fee?
      news?
    1. fmg00's Avatar
      fmg00 -
      This app allows to get podcast over the air, without needing to sync
    1. qumahlin's Avatar
      qumahlin -
      Quite frankly he should have expected this to happen. It was a flagrant abuse of the ad-hoc distribution method. If he really wanted to continue selling his app he should come up with a trial version and sell it to users with jailbroken phones.

      Attempting to get around Apple's ban on the app only ensures that none of this guys future apps are ever going to get certified and makes it less likely that Apple would reverse their decision at all.
    1. one1's Avatar
      one1 -
      iTunes created the podcast!!!!! Without iTunes there would be no podcasters!!!! Apple owns every pod cast ever made and everyone who makes pod casts!!!! There was certainly no such thing as podcast before itunes!!!

      Are you thinking of making a Podcast? Well you thought it, too late now Apple owns you TOO!!!



      F'kers..............
    1. alek's Avatar
      alek -
      Quote Originally Posted by one1 View Post
      iTunes created the podcast!!!!! Without iTunes there would be no podcasters!!!! Apple owns every pod cast ever made and everyone who makes pod casts!!!! There was certainly no such thing as podcast before itunes!!!

      Are you thinking of making a Podcast? Well you thought it, too late now Apple owns you TOO!!!



      F'kers..............
      Apple just coined podcast, podcast are just anualy updated sound files or videos, nothing new.

      Also most podcast arent on itunes, you can download them on the makers website. Itunes has no rite to own all the podcast or podcasters they didnt even trademark the term.

      and just so you no most itunes podcast are free, the point of this app is to sync on the air.
    1. one1's Avatar
      one1 -
      Damn newb, don't look too far past sarcasm you'll hurt yourself.
    1. tattoojack's Avatar
      tattoojack -
      Quote Originally Posted by one1 View Post
      Damn newb, don't look too far past sarcasm you'll hurt yourself.
      lmao, owned.

      one1, doesnt it seem like lately the mmi forum is more like the navy recruiters station.

      we get sophomoric newbs more and more everyday!!!!
    1. kelticfury's Avatar
      kelticfury -
      This just makes me want this app more every time I hear about it. I don't even watch/listen to podcasts.

      Negative publicity FTW.
    1. mooboy's Avatar
      mooboy -
      He should make it available to jailbroken iphones. I'm sure people will donate.
    1. santiagodraco's Avatar
      santiagodraco -
      What get's me is how is it legal for Apple to restrict users from utilizing the capabilities of the hardware with flagrantly anti-competitive practices? They build a phone that has certain capabilities, running software, hardware capabilities, etc. Then they restrict your rights to use those capabilities you paid for to only applications that do not take away from their own revenue streams.

      They do NOT own the device you purchased.

      Isn't this considered anti-competitive?

      I know this has been asked a million times before and debated to high heaven, but it just strikes me as strange that they can do this.

      Microsoft was called to task many times for the same kinds of things in Windows, such as adding code that made competitor browsers now function correctly, and hiding the fact. How is this any different?
    1. SilentEcho's Avatar
      SilentEcho -
      Quote Originally Posted by santiagodraco View Post
      What get's me is how is it legal for Apple to restrict users from utilizing the capabilities of the hardware with flagrantly anti-competitive practices? They build a phone that has certain capabilities, running software, hardware capabilities, etc. Then they restrict your rights to use those capabilities you paid for to only applications that do not take away from their own revenue streams.

      They do NOT own the device you purchased.

      Isn't this considered anti-competitive?

      I know this has been asked a million times before and debated to high heaven, but it just strikes me as strange that they can do this.

      Microsoft was called to task many times for the same kinds of things in Windows, such as adding code that made competitor browsers now function correctly, and hiding the fact. How is this any different?

      It isn't. Try asking Verizon to add many, many Bluetooth features to simple phones like the LG Shine. They use the same principle. If they can make money on it, nobody else should. (I'm mainly referring to the BT Push Object.)


      -J