Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming Businesses Apple IT Technology

Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app 464

Posted by Soulskill
from the forbidden-fruit dept.
recoiledsnake writes "Another submission has been rejected from the iPhone App Store, this time for 'duplicating the functionality of the iPhone Mail application.' The author claims that his application allows the user to log into their multiple web email accounts and that Apple seems to be confusing Gmail and Mail.app. This comes on the heels of Apple rejecting an application for competing with iTunes and rejecting other silly but harmless apps as being of 'limited utility.'" ComputerWorld has an update to the rejected Podcaster app mentioned above. It seems the developer has used Apple's "Ad Hoc" service to begin distributing the software despite the fact that they blocked it from the App Store.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app

Comments Filter:
  • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:41AM (#25092215)

    Reminds me of this article about releasing Maniac Mansion for the NES

    http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/maniac.html [crockford.com]

  • by Eravnrekaree (467752) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:45AM (#25092245)

    The Iphone is an orwellian police state where everything you do on it is carefully censored and controlled by Apple. Certainly i would never use one. I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it. People often fear government as a threat to their freedom, but right here we see with Apple, an obvious violation of peoples rights to use a device that they purchased in a way they wish, and a corporation deciding what people can and cant use it for. This leads in fact to stagnation, a lack of innovation. Many interesting developments and innovations come from innovation and improving and tinkering with an existing platform. A platform that allows a person to develop software provides excellent conditions for new innovations, like new games or mail apps to be developed.

    • by David Gerard (12369) <slashdotNO@SPAMdavidgerard.co.uk> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:47AM (#25092263) Homepage

      It's a general-purpose computer that's been DRM-infected to hell.

      It's what Trusted Computing would actually be like: capricious, arbitrary and overpriced [today.com].

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by wisty (1335733)
        I hope they are registered and approved to engage in exclusive dealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing), otherwise they may be in hot water with the ACCC over the TPA.
      • It's what Trusted Computing would actually be like: capricious, arbitrary and overpriced.

        Are you describing a type of computer technology, or a police state?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fbjon (692006)

          Are you describing a type of computer technology, or a police state?

          Those are quickly becoming one and the same.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ivan256 (17499)

        It's a general-purpose computer that's been DRM-infected to hell.

        It's what Trusted Computing would actually be like: capricious, arbitrary and overpriced [today.com].

        ...and completely hacked.

        You forgot one.

    • by Flynsarmy (1071248) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:50AM (#25092285)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by blind biker (1066130)

        This is what I love about Google as a company: they get it. Look at 3 of the 4 main points that are right smack in your face on that webpage:

        Open
        All applications are equal
        Fast & easy development

        This is what a developer wants. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that Android is going to be a success.

      • by caseih (160668) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @10:32AM (#25093317)

        Android certainly has potential, but so far I see a number of things that prevent it from being an iPhone killer.

        First off, it's entirely Java based. This is just plain silly. Why not have the APIs with bindings for Java? Google has completely cut off other languages. Furthermore, while speed normally isn't an issue with Java these days, there is overhead. Could one really build the X-Plane[1] simulator in Java like they did for the iPod? It's pretty CPU and i/o intensive (calculating force vectors and loading textures, building 3-d models etc, at 30 frames a second). While the iPhone's SDK is mainly objective-C (which I think is pretty silly too), there are a number of languages that you can use to develop with including Python, using an objC bridge. Currently this is not the case with Android. It's only Java. Part of what made the iPhone and Touch so cool early on was that they were little unix systems and one could install python or ruby or any other language and hack together neat scripts and things. Of course Apple has kind of put an end to much of that though, with their official SDK. While Python and probably Ruby can be used, the guts of the iPhone are once again off-limits. It may as well not even be a unix system anymore for all the good it does developers and users. Very sad. Android is open and happens to be able to run on a Linux core, but with core APIs all in Java, there's currently no way to interface from a shell script or to build ad-hoc applications. JPython isn't the solution either since Android's jvm is completely incompatible with Sun's and JPython emits bytecode directly.

        Secondly, I have yet to see that Android really does support multi-touch operations. Demos I've seen so far look fairly conventional, using buttons to zoom, and so forth. I've also seen a fair number of pop-up menus in use in Android apps, which just don't work as well as the way that most iPhone apps typically do it. Perhaps this is mainly do to the poor way in which the UIs have been constructed in the Android apps that I've seen video demos of.

        [1] http://www.x-plane.com/iPhone.html [x-plane.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it.

      I believe it's called android [google.com].

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      The Iphone is an orwellian police state where everything you do on it is carefully censored and controlled by Apple.

      And yet I can still slam Apple on online forums and while phoning friends while using an iPhone.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:35AM (#25092503)

        Just what is expected of Apple fans: Denial. Obviously the iPhone isn't a police state. For one, it isn't a state. That should make it clear that you're looking at an analogy. The programs are the people of that "state", and they are indeed censored and controlled by Apple.

        Unfortunately the central authority model is on the rise everywhere: Even Mozilla has its one stop shop which is tightly integrated into Mozilla's products and where developers are at the mercy of the admins (without the DRM though).

        • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:44AM (#25092985)
          Unfortunately the central authority model is on the rise everywhere:

          It's the mainframe mentality expressed on a global level. And yes, it's unnerving, particularly for someone like me who was there thirty-odd years ago when the personal computer was born, and has long since been accustomed to doing whatever the hell I want with my systems.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Just what is expected of Apple fans: Denial.

          I'm not an Apple fan.

          Obviously the iPhone isn't a police state. For one, it isn't a state. That should make it clear that you're looking at an analogy. The programs are the people of that "state", and they are indeed censored and controlled by Apple.

          Not only is it not a state, it's not policed that tightly. There are limits on competition, and it's severely closed down, but it doesn't clamp down on users the way a police state clamps down on its citizens. I would

      • by mrsteveman1 (1010381) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:30AM (#25092889)

        And yet I can still slam Apple on online forums and while phoning friends while using an iPhone.

        Except for Apples forums, they can't handle criticism even if its just an attempt to resolve a problem.

    • by tgatliff (311583) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:44AM (#25092563)

      When was a device built by Apple a democratic system? If I have a party do I have to invite everyone even if I do not like them?? Certainly not..

      In short.. If you do not like the iPhone, then dont buy one. That is your right, and Apple is not holding a gun to your head. What they are trying to do, however, is to provide the experience that they want and not yours. If that means that they hurt some people's feelings along they way, then they seem fine with that... Personally, I am too...

      • Apple ][ was open. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drerwk (695572) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:35AM (#25092909) Homepage

        When was a device built by Apple a democratic system?

        Just to answer, when the Apple ][ was sold, the documentation included full schematics and a listing of the ROM. It also included a section on how to build an interface card that would work in one of the 8 slots. I don't think I have owned a machine that was more open than the Apple ][.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by KGIII (973947) *

        I respect your right to say what you said and I'm not even going to make a single statement against it.

        Now that I have said that, what would you say if Microsoft did the same thing? I mean it.. Really.. What would you have really said? Please don't respond with something akin to it wouldn't have been okay with them doing it because of their monopolistic status as that, really, has been eradicated for the most part. They can't even include a media player in some markets. So... What would you REALLY say if I

      • by novakreo (598689) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @11:09AM (#25093555) Homepage

        When was a device built by Apple a democratic system?

        Oh I don't know, the entire Mac range?
        I can run any software I please on my MacBook Pro, even format and install Windows or Linux if I want. On an iPhone, I can only run Apple-approved software, unless the phone is jailbroken.

        24 years after their iconic '1984' ad, Apple look like hypocrites with their complete about-face on the iPhone.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by furball (2853)

          On an iPhone, I can only run Apple-approved software, unless the phone is jailbroken.

          So you're saying you can only run Apple-approved software but there are cases where you can opt to run software Apple hasn't or doesn't approved?

          That's like saying I always tell the truth except when I'm lying.

          I run software Apple hasn't approved right now on my iPhone. No jailbreaking required.

    • by mweather (1089505) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:04AM (#25092711)

      I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it.

      What you want is an HTC Dream. It's being released Oct 17.

    • I agree. As far as stagnation and lack of innovation it is interesting that we could claim that with the one phone that has single handedly revived innovation in the handset market (the US market anyway.) I want to see Android come online and give us the innovation AND the openness.

      One question to remain though is if Android will attract as many developers. Apple's free tools for iPhone development are well polished compared to most others I've seen. Will Google put the time and energy into pushing out t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by whisper_jeff (680366)
      Actually, here's a more complete reply to your post.

      The Iphone...

      iPhone. See my earlier post.

      ... is an orwellian police state where everything you do on it is carefully censored and controlled by Apple.

      Melodramatic much?

      Certainly i would never use one.

      You and millions of other people. Some for the same reason and others for a variety of other reasons. That's just the market exercising their right to choose. Congrats.

      I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based o
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by msclrhd (1211086)

      There is: http://www.openmoko.com/ [openmoko.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ScrewMaster (602015)
      Apple is a private corporation and they can run their service any way they wish as long as they are not in violation of the law. So far as I'm aware, they aren't, so I don't think "rights" come into play here. The devices in question are sold under certain terms, and if you don't like them you're free not to give Apple your money. The cellphone market is competitive as hell, and there are plenty of alternatives (and while the iPhone may be the slickest thing out there right now, the competition will catch u
    • by erroneus (253617) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:43AM (#25092979) Homepage

      You know, while I resent and dislike this scenario for all the same reasons most people here do, I have to think about this from the other side of it. My CEO loves his MacBook pro. He loves it so much, last year, he got Macs for the whole family and bought every Apple device to support it -- airports and the like -- and went full-bore Apple at home and didn't look back. It was total commitment. It was part experiment and part disgust and frustration with the misery that Windows brings.

      Apple works to keep confusion out of the Apple world. They do this by controlling the environment carefully. It is imperfect in areas; faults and holes are found and closed. And it is speculative to say that Apple excludes things for anti-competitive reasons, but it is unquestionable that they do work to control the environment. But for many people, the results of this provides exactly the experience people are seeking out of Apple.

      And I think the fact that Apple's philosophy exists in the form it does is useful if for no reason than to observe the practices and the results they yield.

      Apple isn't in 100% control though. Apple HAS to allow Microsoft to behave like assholes in their world. By that, I am specifically talking about the difficulty of setting up Entourage to connect to a Microsoft Exchange server using SSL without getting the invalid certificate error. It's a Microsoft app and a Microsoft server. You'd think they would be able to get it right but for whatever reason, Microsoft hasn't fixed it. If Apple had their way, they would exclude Microsoft entirely from their environment... it just wouldn't be a wise business decision. Microsoft applies other limitations and broken behaviors in its products for Apple as well. This is not something that Apple easily tolerates... but they will from Microsoft and probably from Adobe as well.

      Other opinions aside, I find it interesting to observe the various dynamics surrounding Apple's philosophies applied.

  • by mrbah (844007) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @07:49AM (#25092269)

    Isn't duplicating functionality the basis for competition? The 45 different flashlight applications don't exactly support the claim that duplicate functionality is why these applications were rejected.

    Seems to me like they're trying to reserve the right to develop their own alternative to any application on the store and pull the third party version. Don't you just love closed platforms?

    • by Archimonde (668883) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:20AM (#25092815) Homepage

      Even if I don't support it in any case, it is about duplication of *apple's* software functionality. So it doesn't matter if there are 45 versions of flashlight apps, apple doesn't have one so they don't care. When you start to design your music player, mail and itunes app, then you get into the problems.

      But by using a different distribution method (jailbroken device + cydia or installer.app) you could duplicate the functionality of apple's own apps.

    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:29AM (#25092871) Homepage

      Part of the problem is that Apple hasn't built their existing applications to be removable, so even if they allowed the these competing apps they'd still be competing against entrenched applications (like IE on Windows).

      Now, I don't think it's quite as bad as IE on Windows, but only because at this point it's sort of in a middle-ground between a real handheld computer and an embedded system. But still, Apple should just treat it like a real handheld system, allow competing applications, open all the APIs and allow their applications to be removed.

  • "Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. [today.com] But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it's pretty and it's cool and it works. It's not like you'll go back to a Windows Mobile phone. Ha! Ha!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Atzanteol (99067)
      Just another entry in the iProduct [gizmodo.com] line.
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:14AM (#25092377) Homepage
    It's a waste of investment. It's just that simple. The moment Apple wants to do something you're doing, they just get rid of you. No serious business should ever invest money into the iPhone because they are completely at the mercy of Apple here, in a way that makes Microsoft look like they're selling an open source platform.
    • It's a waste of investment. It's just that simple.

      That makes no sense. Most iPhones actually do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to be an open platform. If that's what you want, get something else!

      The moment Apple wants to do something you're doing, they just get rid of you.

      You seriously think that? Corporations are not evil for evil's sake, they actually want something specific: more money. How on earth could Apple spontaneously cutting off users at all help their sales? Sure, there have b

      • by stg (43177) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:41AM (#25092545) Homepage
        I think it was fairly clear that the grandparent was talking about developing software for the iPhone, not just using one. And I agree completely with his points. Of course, any company can develop a free program that duplicates yours, but being able to ban your software from the only place you can sell it is much worse. Even as an user, I find their attitude unacceptable, and will not buy their stuff.
      • by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:54AM (#25092633)

        It's a waste of investment. It's just that simple

        That makes no sense. Most iPhones actually do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to be an open platform. If that's what you want, get something else!

        the grandaprent obviously means that developing on the Iphone is a waste of investment. Most people do that kind of investment with a plan for a small reasonable return and a reasonable hope for great riches if their application happens to hit a sweet spot. With the iphone the situation is that, if you do hit that sweet spot, Apple can, and will just eliminate your application whilst introducing their own one. You end up doing free (or even profitable) R&D for Apple.

        Others have compared this with Windows, but actually it's very similar. Microsoft has shown a willingness to kill any partner which gets too big for it's boots by competing against them. E.g. look at Borland which was wiped out by microsoft's compiler suite; look at Netscape; look even at Oracle: they were only saved because they had other platforms. Even so Oracle is in a much worse position because of MSSql than it would be otherwise.

  • Apple, I don't know how to tell you this, but Mail.app sucks. Seriously. I put up with it on my Mac because it's not my primary computer and I don't use it enough to install Thunderbird. If I actually needed a good mail reader on OS X, though, Mail.app would be gone in a heartbeat.

    So now I know that if I were to get an iPhone, I'd be stuck with a crappy mail reader. The silver lining is that now people know that in advance.

    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:41AM (#25092963) Journal
      Out of interest, what don't you like about Mail.app? I've used it as my primary (actually, only) mail client for a few years, coming from Thunderbird (before that, from Mozilla Mail and News, before that Outlook Express, and before that MS Mail and News), and haven't had any issues with it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ivan256 (17499)

        It only needs one thing wrong with it to be worthless.

        It crashes on large mailboxes. That's a game-loser right there.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Lemmy Caution (8378)

        Horrible IMAP handling, copying multiple versions of the same messages and attachments to offline stores, eating HD space, fixable only by removing the local IMAP folder every so often.

        Also, no "View Next Unread Message" function.

  • Why don't you just contact your national antitrust department? E.g. in Europe we have a simple consumer form [europa.eu].

    Despite all the Apple hype their platform is the most proprietary. A golden cage.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 (641858)
      Because it's not a monopoly. You can abuse a minority market share as much as you want. The iPhone is, currently, the nicest phone I've played with, but it's still a tiny player. It's not even the best selling touchscreen phone. Giving up certain freedoms in exchange for a nicer user interface is a choice that individuals are free to make.
  • From TFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by PainMeds (1301879) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:17AM (#25092409)
    ⦠Your application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion. â¦

    So the 30 different versions of Voice Notes is acceptable, since it doesn't compete with Apple, but having two versions of mail applications are unacceptable?

    What bothers me more than this is that the AppStore restricts any frameworks that one _could_ use to write good applications, like movie players (CoreSurface) and programs that interact with iTunes. If you look at older versions of the firmware, these were all public frameworks until the AppStore rolled out.
    • What bothers me more than this is that the AppStore restricts any frameworks that one _could_ use to write good applications, like movie players (CoreSurface) and programs that interact with iTunes. If you look at older versions of the firmware, these were all public frameworks until the AppStore rolled out.

      Well, technically before there was an App Store and an official SDK all the frameworks used on the iPhone were private.

  • by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:32AM (#25092485) Homepage
    The average consumer just wants something simple that works and is secure and looks great. They don't care if they're making things worse for themselves. Just look at MS' monopoly. People love it.

    By closing the system up it's more secure and they can guarentee their software remains popular on their system.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by freedom_india (780002)

      No. This is pure profit motive, that's all.
      Apple is hyper-monopolistic and hyper-aggressive when it comes to their OS.
      No one has built an effective Mail client for Mac OS X. No one has built a good replacement for ANY of the Mac OS X's system tools, BECAUSE Apple closes their system effectively.
      On one hand they cry out loud no one builds apps for their OS, but OTOH they scuttle anything which remotely threatens them.
      Unlike Microsoft.
      True Microsoft is the T-Rex, but they don't compete in markets like system

      • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:50AM (#25093027) Journal

        No. This is pure profit motive, that's all.

        And how much profit does Apple make on Mail.app?

        If Apple allowed a competing mail app, this would encourage more people to buy the iPhone (more money for Apple), and I'm sure they get a cut of sales through the App Store (even more money for Apple).

        No one has built an effective Mail client for Mac OS X.

        Thunderbird isn't effective?

        No one has built a good replacement for ANY of the Mac OS X's system tools, BECAUSE Apple closes their system effectively.

        Or maybe because there's really not a market for someone to duplicate the functionality of, say, Disk Utility. And there's really not a lot you can do on top of Disk Utility.

        True Microsoft is the T-Rex, but they don't compete in markets like system tools, mail clients, etc.

        WTF? Can it be you don't know about Outlook?

        Sure, they don't ban these other markets, but it's not as though they don't attempt to compete.

  • "duplicating the functionality"?! How can anyone put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) and write such utter nonsense? All other platforms have competing products that try to achieve the same or similar functionality in a better or different way, so does Apple really think their shit is going to fly? Do they think their users are idiots?

  • People here know that Apple is commercial enterprise, right? Google has open source apps because apps are not their core business, advertising is. Apple sells software to drive hardware sales. The have a need to ensure that their application site remains unique and that they control the entire experience because that is what differentiates them. By offering up a competitor to iTunes or even to Mail.app (which offers unique integration into THEIR ecosystem), Apple would undermine their own ability to make a
    • by iamhigh (1252742) *
      Take it one step higher. Burger King and McD's both have a business license in your city to sell the same product right? What if NYC decided to facilitate better controls over the meat industry to prevent mad-cow disease? In the process they denied Burger King's business licenses because it provides the same functionality, but only increases the amount of work on their part. Neither of our analogies are any good, BTW.
    • Apple sells software to drive hardware sales.

      So, what, exactly, does Apple sell for the iPhone?

      By offering up a competitor to iTunes or even to Mail.app (which offers unique integration into THEIR ecosystem), Apple would undermine their own ability to make a profit.

      On hardware?

      I haven't bought an iPhone, largely because of the insane amount of lock-in on the thing. I might be more likely to buy it if I knew there would be a competitor to Mail.app. So Apple has lost an iPhone sale due to this.

      What, exactly, would they lose if I'd bought an iPhone and used this other app, instead of the free built-in Mail.app?

  • it's stupidity. You can already setup your mail through Mail.app. It IS confusing to a lot of customers. I think now is the shock time when we find out that there are people who aren't computer literate who are vast majority who use these things.

  • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @09:28AM (#25092863) Homepage

    This is making me not only completely refuse to ever buy an iPhone, but also making me wary of buying more Macs in the future.

    Apple was moving in a good direction with Mac OS X by basing their platform on BSD and building it on open source software. Now we see them pulling stuff like this.

    How long until they start restricting what can be installed on Macs?

    I may just return to using Linux on the desktop. Many of the issues I was annoyed with that caused me to switch to OS X in 2003 have been worked out, and I can probably deal with the remaining ones.

    *grumble* just when Apple was starting to get really awesome, they pull stuff like this. Very disappointed in them.

  • Life Without Walls (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bones3D_mac (324952) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @11:05AM (#25093519)

    You know, this is one area Microsoft could really do some damage to Apple in their "I'm a PC" movement. And, (wait for it...) they'd be right to do it!

    The iPhone is one of the most draconian platforms ever produced for a consumer market, gradually stripping away more and more of the end-users rights and abilities until they all become a singular monolithic platform where no one user has capabilities other users do not. This is probably the furthest thing away from what Steve Woziak envisioned when he developed the first personal computer.

    Strange how the company he originally co-founded on the idea of bringing personal computing to the masses is now pushing the masses toward a mainframe/dumb terminal relationship with their computers.

    When you look at the direction the iPhone has taken, it scares me to think what future technologies like cloud computing could end up as, if they developed from this same context.

    I'm not suggesting that Microsoft is now the "good guy" in all this, but when their methods of locking everything down seem relatively minor when compared to the Apple Inc. way of doing things, something has definitely gone in the land of Jobs.

  • by PhotoGuy (189467) on Sunday September 21, 2008 @08:13PM (#25098579) Homepage

    No one is going to use a third party mail app, or music app, or other app that competes with your offerings, unless it is substantially better. Compete on your merits.

    I'm a big Mac fan; switched to a MacBook and there's no going back. I love OS X, the hardware, the general approach and leadership of Jobs.

    But this app store stuff is ridiculous. It's reminiscent of MS in the early days. "We encourage your development on our platform, until we get into the space." Just like MS started picking off app areas one by one, killing third party vendors supporting their platform (Spreadsheet, Word Processors, even TCP/IP stacks), Apple is going to cannibalize themselves if they keep this approach up. Even as a Mac Fanboi, I'm thinking this is outrageous and has to stop.

    I'm also a developer, and was seriously considering dedicating myself to iPhone apps, but am putting that on hold until I see some change in policies. (Or at least more visibility as to the policy.)

I've never been canoeing before, but I imagine there must be just a few simple heuristics you have to remember... Yes, don't fall out, and don't hit rocks.

Working...