Apple Takes out 3,000 word ad on the front page of the Sunday NY Times Biz section
Two things we love: The New York Times and Apple. However, today's gushing front page Business Section App Store article reads more like a PR piece than actual information. Let's keep it real here. Apple granted interviews with Phil Schiller and Eddie Cue to get some positive spin on the App Store which has been getting some significant negative press lately. The news that the App Store is a "game changer" is not new, people were calling it such in 2008.
Somewhere, buried in the 3,000 words, is the downside of the App Store which is the actual news:
“We’re facing 396 days with no contact from Apple,” says Eric Thomas, chief executive of FreedomVoice. “The app has been ‘pending’ in the App Store for a year.”
Mr. Thomas says he understands that it is Apple’s decision whether to accept his app. “But the idea they wouldn’t tell us it was a no — or even why — so we could try to do something about it,” he said, “is a very strange and unneighborly approach.”
Yes, very "unneighborly". Mr. Rogers would be very upset.
Apple hasn't been too kind to phone apps in general. Remember AT&T all of those (3) months ago saying they would allow VoIP over their network on the iPhone? Not one voice app has been allowed to do that and Apple is the only one stopping them. Apple has even allowed a video app to use AT&T's network, but without sound. Skype isn't allowed to work over 3G, neither is Fring.
Why?
One reason might be that that Apple is working on their own VoIP app. This is really a forgone conclusion however, because at some point Apple will be building an LTE iPhone. LTE is a All IP Network (AIPN). No voice. So the only way to use LTE Networks as phones is over VoIP. Obviously there will be some dual-radio overlap while LTE is deployed so we are talking a few years out.
So how long can Apple hold out before its customers start to demand services like Google's Voice, or a real version of Skype? We're pretty sure that if Apple allowed it, Fring would have had it by now. Their apps for other platforms (and their jailbroken App) worked over 3G.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
YahooLatest Stories on 9 to 5 Mac
- Sprint tries to get on iPhone bandwagon with 4G hotspot
- 9to5mac: What's the best value in monitors?
- Dell S2009W 20" Widescreen LCD Display for $89 + free shipping
- 10.6.3 Pre-release hits unsuspecting updater?
- Steve Jobs helps pass California organ donation bill
- Updated iTunes Connect: Submitting iPad Apps Interface
- Apple is now accepting iPad apps to the App Store
AAPL Stock Coverage
222.25-2.4001
9to5 Toys
Apple iMac Core i5 2.66GHz 27" for $1,849 after rebate + free shipping
AT&T Cell Phones + $40 billing credit for free at Wirefly.com
Refurbished Apple Mac mini Intel Desktops from $499 + free shipping
Samsung 46" 120Hz 1080p LCD HDTV for $1,050 + free shipping
HP xb4 Laptop Media Docking Station for $80 + free shipping
Poll
Recent comments
- I'll do my best not sounds
7 min 45 sec ago - Something to note about the
17 min 38 sec ago - They shouldn't need to
24 min 22 sec ago - I can understand for the
30 min 42 sec ago - "While I enjoy this tasty
30 min 46 sec ago - Seriously, whilst not 'value
52 min 59 sec ago - Phwa, we just got a Dell
53 min 45 sec ago - any of the ones linked above
57 min 7 sec ago - It is around $400 and is
59 min 11 sec ago - "I won't lie. I miss the old
1 hour 29 min ago
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 0 guests online.
Online users
- admin
Comments (24)
It's not surprising the Times had such a puff piece -- they stopped being a serious force in journalism a long time ago.
Have you ever actually read The Times or do you just regurgitate Fox FauxNews talking points?
As a New Yorker, I can tell you, when any important event takes place, every copy of the Times is gone. All you'll find at newsstands are big piles of the yellow journalism rags Daily News and NY Post.
As an American, I could care less what vomit spews from the NY Times. They are as bias as the rest of the media with an agenda. What newspaper gave away the troop locations in Iraq? Oh yeah, the NYT! Filth! I can only hope they go under!
As an American, I could care less what vomit spews from the NY Times. They are as bias as the rest of the media with an agenda. What newspaper gave away the troop locations in Iraq? Oh yeah, the NYT! Filth! I can only hope they go under!
I don't really understand the argument that apple has to develop a voip app because of LTE. I know that right now LTE is IP only, but I thought that LTE was supposed to get voice specs in the near future. If this is the case and all phone makers going to be making phones and thus need voip apps wouldn't the voip app just be the phone then? If this is the truth and apple has to develop voip for it self as the core of their phones to come I see why they are dragging their feet. I don't condone it, but I see why they would be worried. If all future phones run on voip wouldn't that mean all of our future phone calls would be pure data; what would happen to phone rate plans?
Is this what is to come? Any clarification is greatly appreciated.
Anything not analog is digital, therefore binary, therefore 'data'. It's a consumer term when they try and separate the voice and 'data' stuff. But anything digitized is data. To a UNIX system, for instance, everything is a 'file'.... jpg, mpg, doc, xcl, application. But we differentiate them to make things easier for us humans to categorize. Same with 'data'.
Part of Apple being so secretive a company is that when it wants to spin something, all it has to do is offer up an interview. Big publications fall all over themselves trying to get the exclusive. If the piece is slightly negative, they don't get the interview next time.
That's how the game is played - and always has been. Grow up.
It is true that if writers/journalists don't read a positive piece about Apple, that Apple won't grant interviews. Same with all companies like Microsoft etc. I remembered reading one publication changed the cover of Steve Ballmer because they didn't want to offend, while they did a similar style on Donald Trump a few years back.
What I'm bothered by are these strategic ad tactics invading journalism. But because the publishers heavily depend on ad sales to stay afloat, the NY Times has to publish these ads. Last month, the NY Times published a really obnoxious ad in the Business section. It was obnoxious because the ad was flashing that I couldn't even read the articles, so I left the newspaper site altogether (and extreme that turning I couldn't turn a blind eye and filter it as I could with other ads). And since then, I haven't visited the publication site again. Also, I found another publication where I liked their analysis better (New York Magazine), which I ended up subscribing to their print publication.
I understand the need for free news, and with that price tag, free news coming from the support of advertisers. But why can't print publications mimic the public television/public radio model? They don't broadcast obnoxious ads, and they ask viewers and listeners to support them monetarily. And when they want support, they up the ante on content (e.g. Suzie Ormand on PBS).
Eric Schmidt of Google wrote this (WSJ--post link below):
"The flow of accurate information, diverse views and proper analysis is critical for a functioning democracy."
I believe these ads are starting to effect the editorial review of publishers. For example, there are SEO (Search Engine Optimization) departments that teach copy editors and journalists to change the headlines of articles so that when someone types a keyword in, the result will come up first. I agree with Eric Schmidt, but he's just another ad guy.
: |
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574569570797550520.html
Nice invocation of Mr Rogers ;)
But I think you're incorrect when you say “Apple hasn't been too kind to phone apps in general.” In GENERAL, they've been quite kind. The terms of the app store are good, the distribution is to 100% of the target market, the mechanisms in place work well... in general. The examples of apps whose approval process was smooth far outnumbers those where it was not. Nevertheless, there have been some glaring edge-case examples where “not” is a big understatement--and where Apple has earned some legitimate criticism. Some of these cases have garnered widespread press. No doubt there are others we haven't heard about, but it's not the majority (which is what I'd argue you'd have to establish in order to legitimately use a qualifier like 'in general' in this case), or else there would be thousands of examples of inappropriate cancellations every day. And there doesn't seem to be that.
Now, I don't argue that you're supposed to give Apple a pass regarding those cases that seem inappropriate or unfair. That would obviously be wrong. But if you want to be fair in your criticism of an entity, you have to be fair in giving it credit too.
Actually, the words "phone apps" I believe was meant to specify apps that allow you to talk (like a phone) over them. So really, Apple has been quite unkind to phone apps. I can only think of 4 or 5, and none of them have been allowed to introduce the ability to talk over 3G, and some of them haven't even been allowed into the app store (Google Voice anybody?) That's what the article is talking about, I think.
It seems to me that it's not very clear where the evolution from 3G is progressing, perhaps it will be to LTE but I am sure that Apple is going to be primarily concerned with backing a technology that will become globably ubiquitous and it is by no means certain at this point that this will be LTE.
Irrespectively as most European carriers are still experimenting with both LTE and Wimax Mobile, to the extent that no major carrier (to my knowledge) has laid out to their shareholders costings for the large scale infrastructure updates this will require, it seems to be years away at the moment.
If you use an iPhone with a 3G connection, in the UK at least, you will be well aware that O2 and the carriers that have recently started stocking the iPhone are already having to invest significantly in making 3G work effectively for the current installed base who are using it as intended for the first time.
The expense of these upgrades, especially considering the diminishing returns carriers are receiving from them. is more than likely going to delay either of these solutions for even longer than it was previously anticipated.
Your article asserts that AT&T will allow VoIP calls on their network, but Apple won't approve the apps!? That doesn't pass the sniff test at all.
Apple loses nothing by allowing VoIP calls. In fact it would make their platform even more popular.
AT&T loses revenue with VoIP calls on their network - anyone who pays for a contract with more than the minimum 450 minutes would be able to downgrade to a less expensive plan.
Just as the US built the interstate highway system in the 50's and 60's because it was for the benefit of the nation as a whole, economically and more, so today we should have ubiquitous cell and/or wi-fi signal throughout the country. Make access to a signal universal and cheap and watch productivity explode.
The fact remains that AT&T has stated that they now allow VOIP apps on their network, but Apple still refuses to allow such apps into the app store. So unless Apple says that AT&T is lying and is actually preventing them from allowing such apps, then we have nobody to blame but Apple.
.. this 'article' was such a PR job and so far from reality, I gave up after page 2 of 5.
i'm so sick of hearing these whiny developers bellowing about how apple is mistreating them, those poor poor souls. either your app sucks or it conflicts with apple's plans. either way it is APPLE'S prerogative. they invented the device, its their decision. stop your bitching!
I am sick of hearing that Apple is justified in doing whatever it wants just because it invented the device. It's like arguing that there should be no ethical considerations in business, the only thing that matters is what you can get away with legally and it doesn't matter how your decisions affect other people, or affect the whole, just your own bottom line.
Waiting over a year "pending" whether an app is going to be accepted or not!? Does anyone really want to say that's ok, and Apple is justified in doing that? It doesn't make me want to do business with them.
It's a back-alley, covert way of doing anti-competitive practices without owning up to the fact that that's what they're doing. I want to hear Apple's justification for taking more than a year to give a straight answer.
they ARE justified. it is not unethical. no one is forcing you to develop. you dont know their motivations. get over yourself, have some self-respect, and quit your bitching.
I read the the ad this morning, and I was completely fooled into thinking that it was an article written by a staff member of the NY Times until I read about it on 9to5.
Isn't it standard policy for newspapers to have ads clearly marked as such? Aren't there laws prohibiting this kind of hidden advertisement nonsense? It makes me consider cancelling my subscription.
You are joking, right? Don't cancel your subscription, they are usually much better than this.
Why would I joke? A paid ad posing as a legit article is beyond criminal. I can't believe that the WSJ and others haven't reported on this yet - maybe they all do it so much that they aren't saying anything.
quote:
"the App Store which has been getting some significant negative press lately"
This is true, but... can anybody make a "real analysis"?
The store has 100.000+ apps approved in... one year. Of course that, for the developer, one day in delay is one chance less to earn money.
Do somebody find the percentage of rejected apps? The mean/smaller/longer times for approval?
Maybe somebody can build a site "only for iPhone developers" in which each one tells her/his story and put her/his data: time to approval, number/reasons of disapproval, etc., etc.
After filling the site with 90% of the apps' data we can begin to know which one is the reality.
Once more time, of course... "my pain is the worst pain... just because it is mine!" (change "pain" by "rejected app.")
I think Apple is doing this only for the Marketing. I think Apple wants to create the Reputation in the market. It may also happen that the Apple is going to release its new product.
This is one reason I like the restrictions on the App Store. 9 to 5 mac is always promoting jail breaking the iPhone. That's baloney. Ilike mine the way it came from Apple. http://bit.ly/6VYgKi
What is it with Americans and "could care less"? Do you even think about what you say? Do you mean to imply that you don't care? "I could care less" is just weird ... Come to the UK and hear it said "properly" you crazy US grammar grinches.