Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
09-23-2008, 12:56 AM #1
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.
09-23-2008, 03:02 AM #2
09-23-2008, 07:19 AM #3
True dat.If you like or found helpful anything I have said, please click that nice little Thanks button!
The Following User Says Thank You to ksong12 For This Useful Post:
09-23-2008, 11:19 AM #4
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?
The Following User Says Thank You to tattoojack For This Useful Post:
09-23-2008, 01:23 PM #5
This app allows to get podcast over the air, without needing to sync
09-23-2008, 02:45 PM #6expected
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.
09-23-2008, 02:58 PM #7
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!!!
The Following User Says Thank You to one1 For This Useful Post:
09-23-2008, 07:35 PM #8Um no
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.
09-23-2008, 07:45 PM #9
Damn newb, don't look too far past sarcasm you'll hurt yourself.
09-23-2008, 08:33 PM #10
09-24-2008, 10:17 AM #11
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.
09-24-2008, 05:23 PM #12
He should make it available to jailbroken iphones. I'm sure people will donate.
09-27-2008, 02:43 PM #13I don't know how they can get away with it...
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?
03-20-2009, 04:39 PM #14