Qt Apps banned from Mac App Store?

[jfk]

Also, Apple is a notorious for closed systems. Apart from keeping control of the look and feel, this also allows Apple to charge inflated prices for the "official" development toolkit, charge high annual fees for developer "licenses" and otherwise squeeze cash out of their customer base in every way possible.

True. If they want to reject an App they will - wether it complies with the App Store Guidelines or not.

The dilemma is this: If an indie software developer wants an entry to the market placement in an App Store is almost a necessity.

[SixDegrees]

I'm developing an interest in tablet computing. I may pick up a cheap tablet just to goof around with. If and when I develop apps for it (Apple is attempting, by the way, to copyright the word 'app', another example of massive overreach) it won't be for any Apple products. I have issues with Google as well, but Android is a developer's dream come true - free, well supported by a huge community, and spreading like wildfire.

[ChrisW67]

For the Mac there's nothing stopping you distributing the Qt-based application yourself. As an added bonus you get to keep the 30% Apple tax. Of course, if Apple try to make the App store the only distribution channel for applications on the Mac then that's a different proposition.

I am routinely asked when the iPhone/iPad (and soon Android) versions of my products are due. Notice the absolute assumption that there will be a iPhone/iPad/Android versions.. like it is some deity-given right and as easy as flicking a switch. It is a shame that Qt cannot get me to those platforms.
Some of the Apple store restrictions are also potential show stoppers for me:

• Apps that are “beta”, “demo”, “trial”, or “test” versions will be rejected. Would you buy an app for more than a few tens of dollars sight unseen?
• Apps containing “rental” content or services that expire after a limited time will be rejected. My app would depend on periodic updates of the data contained within but this is not a free exercise for me. Apple wants you to sell the application over again in order to collect another 30%. To make this work I need to drastically drop the application price thereby devaluing the product on other platforms.
• Apps may not use update mechanisms outside of the App Store
• Apps that present a license screen at launch will be rejected

[d_stranz]

If Steve were 200 lbs heavier, he could take off his shoe, pound it on the podium, and scream "We will bury you!" at the next press conference. He apparently doesn't read history, at least not the histories associated with other centrally-controlled, dogmatic dictatorial enterprises like the (former) Soviet Union.

The Apple Store restrictions sound to me like an excellent way to reduce your market share in deference to the more open models of other mobile OS platforms.

[wysota]

Well, so far they are successful so it seems the approach was a correct one from a business point of view. They can always change their rules should some other scheme become popular enough.

[pheonixstorm]

I'm developing an interest in tablet computing. I may pick up a cheap tablet just to goof around with. If and when I develop apps for it (Apple is attempting, by the way, to copyright the word 'app', another example of massive overreach) it won't be for any Apple products. I have issues with Google as well, but Android is a developer's dream come true - free, well supported by a huge community, and spreading like wildfire.

Microsoft has a patent on the page up/down key now... http://www.tomshardware.com/news/mic...tent,6307.html so a copyright on the word app is not as stupid as one would think. At least they don't want to patent it

[wysota]

I don't think you can patent a word. A copyright on the word App does make sense. Remember it doesn't apply to a common meaning/use of the word, only to names, titles and such. Just like Sony has a copyright on the name of Walkman (I don't know how it is in your countries but in Poland we used to refer to every personal cassette player as a walkman).

[squidge]

Your right, you can't patent a word. You can only patent an idea. So Microsoft didn't patent the page up/page down keys, they patented the idea (the function) of those keys. However, if anyone can prove that function was used in public before the patent was filed, it can easily be thrown out by any challenger.

A copyright on the word 'App' doesn't make sense, but making it a 'Trademark' does.

[wysota]

So Microsoft didn't patent the page up/page down keys, they patented the idea (the function) of those keys.

In the patent there is a math formula for calculating the offsets. I think that's the core of the patent. You can probably modify the formula slightly and workaround the patent.

[pheonixstorm]

I don't think you can patent a word.

From my (limited) understanding of trademark and copyright laws phrases and words can have an associated copyright/trademark if its original. So when the walkman first came out I can see how the term walkman could have be filed as a copyright/trademark though the term can now no longer hold up in court as anything that looks like a sony walkman is now refered to as a walkman even if it isn't. The term has become too widespread and overused to descibe any portable cassete or cd player. As for the idea of creating a copyright over the term App, even as a trademark I don't think apple has a snowballs chance in hell of pulling it off. The phrase is too widespread and has been for a long time since it is a short hand version of application (unless apple can create some new meaning for the word that falls outside the widely used and commonly accepted meaning.