Not so bad Apple, bad Apple

5 August 2009 by Shaun 4 Comments

dict Here’s yet another Apple story which looks at the way the company deals with customers and developers. First up, Murray from Palm Mac has published iPod non story which discusses the recent iPod exploding story. It is indeed true that the press blew it up out of all proportion, and 247 covered it as well, but has anyone else received such a condition to a full refund? I never had anything of the sort when my BlackBerry Curve 8900 broke and or when my Treos broke continually. I sort of agree with Murray that this is a non-story, but it’s a bit like a celebrity requesting privacy when they do something wrong and spend the rest of their lives courting the media- you can’t expect millions of column inches when you release a new iPhone or iPod and little attention when something goes wrong. It’s the way the media works now.

Onto another Apple story. I have always tried to support Apple over the rejection of applications because there are thousands to get through, but the recent removal of apps with no reason offered by Apple was a new low in this continuing story. engadget has now published details of the process a developer had to go through to get a dictionary posted. I will let you read it all at engadget, but it is truly silly and will hopefully help to spur a change of direction in the future.

4 Comments »

jah said:

Why do Apple vet applications? Why not just let apps meet security requirements like Symbian?

# 5 August 2009 at 9:41 pm

Steve said:

Apple is a strange and wonderful company, where its employees live and are warped by the reality distortion field of their boss.

The good news is they generally DO respond to such criticism – but usually not right away.

# 5 August 2009 at 10:45 pm

Joel said:

I think the only real ’story’ in the exploding battery coverage was the use of what Murrey called a ’standard non-disclosure agreement’ in order to get a replacement… I have worked in retail for 10 years (H/O end not on the floor) and never heard of a company doing this (actually in Australia they couldn’t, legally if the device was proved faulty)..

That was the only story, not that it actually exploded by itself, hell Sony has had plenty of press for that…

# 5 August 2009 at 10:52 pm

Philippa said:

I’m starting to think that the apps vetting team has a few vague rules put on
a napkin during a coffee break and no consistent process at all.
Clearly quality is not one of the criteria….

# 6 August 2009 at 9:01 am