Originally Posted by sam1am:
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.
xp and vista are two different Os's, i would be very upset if a had a program that stopped working after a service pack or a tuesday night M$ update.
Originally Posted by sam1am:
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.
he now updated us with that info on in the comments on the front page, he hadn't mentioned that before, and besides if he knew he would need an exception and he didnt get it why is he so upset.
Originally Posted by sam1am:
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.
palm didn;t promise anything he assumed it, and its his problem if he got rejected using com.palm and Undoc't API's