Quote:
Originally Posted by abegee
Hi all,
As a webOS dev myself, I think 'blubble' is stupid for trying to get his app accepted, while using the com.palm namespace and using undocumented api's. here's why.
1. Palm is working hard to get webOS working for us dev's, no one would be more frustrated then us dev's, if they used a documented API and then in the next update the app stopped working, since palm had done some work on the API and changed the way it shpuld be used. I think that both dev's and users agree on that. (in short: The API used in Nanplayer probably needs work done to it, and NaNplayer would be broken once that work gets done.)
2. 'blubble' is pretty immature at the way he took the 'rejection' by saying i'm not working with webOS anymore. Any mature adult understands that, if you flaunt the rules your probably going to get rejected.
3. Palm has stated very clearly that,
a) the SDK is beta.
b)things will be opened up soon. ie. more documented api's.
c) don't apply for the catalog if you use undocumented API's. (only an idiot could apply after doing those things and to get offended and act like a baby is simply '********'.
Another point I would like to mention is that, we all want palm to
1. release update 1.2
2. release a new SDK
3. approve more apps to the catalog
4. fix bugs and add API's
palm can only do so much at once give them TIME.
Not everyone wants to use Homebrew, they want apps that palm has tested and know they work not patches and hacks. they have a contract with the app catalog users do give them working stuff.
the way NaNplayer should have taken this is what
Music Player (remix) did, contact palm and ask them what can be done, palm is very helpful and wants to have good apps in there catalog more then the users want it, so why try to be 'smart' and not contact palm.
All this brings me down to one point 'blubble' is simply a stupid idiot for not doing things correctly. its him alone who killed his app and not PALM. ( and to the commentator who thinks 'blubble' is a whiz for 'discovering' this undocumented API. It as easy as reading a telephone book).
Abe.
P.S. anyone with any problem with what Iv'e said can leave a comment I'm waiting to here stupid comments.
|
Wow, you have no clue what you're talking about.
First of all, I'd rather have freedom than "security." If it's a choice between not having an app, and having an app that might break with the next OS update, I'll take the app that might break. That's because I have the freedom to do what I want. That is how every operating system on the face of the planet works. You obtain an app, and it may or may not work with the next OS update. If your XP apps don't work with Vista, you either don't upgrade or you don't use the apps. Giving the OS maker so much control over what you're allowed to do leads to far more problems than it purports to solve.
Second, the developer didn't submit to the app store blindly while using an undocmented API. He worked with Palm during the EAP to get the app to a state where it could eventually be approved. He submitted it by their invitation and he knew and noted that it would require an exception for the API it used. Despite Palm's promise of working with him, he got nowhere with them and now you see the aftermath - the app has been rejected and Palm has proven that we can expect more of the same bull(*@#& we've seen from Apple.
Truly disappointing. This leaves the most open mobile platform being Windows Mobile. When Microsoft does it better than you, you KNOW you're doing something wrong.
This sort of behavior is a bigger deal than you think. We're pretty much headed for the mobile dark ages.
I don't want a mobile appliance. I want a mobile computer that I OWN and can do with as I please!