Apple Finally Approves Google+ App For iPhone 162
CWmike writes "Apple approved the Google+ app for the iPhone on Tuesday, and posted it to the App Store. It's unclear whether Google has created an iPad-specific app. Two weeks ago, a Google employee said that the company had submitted Google+ to the App Store ... on July 4. According to that timeline, Google's app took twice as long as the majority of submitted apps to win Apple's approval."
!news (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, how is this even remotely news? Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps? Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe? Please explain me. It's not like Apple has any kind of relationship with Facebook. Microsoft does, and I would still be fairly certain that even Microsoft would accept it to Windows Phone 7 app store.
Oh, it's ComputerWorld and I guess they needed some visitors from slashdot again.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps?
For their own mysterious/nefarious purposes. Why would they initially not allow users to change the background on the iphone? Apple likes control.
Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?
Perhaps Apple was deliberately holding up the app to sabotage Google + launch. Major holidays? Give me a break. Had apple been playing nice to Google and iphone owners, this would have been fasttracked for approval.
Re:!news (Score:5, Insightful)
You really believe that not being able to change the background initially was because of control and not simply because they had limited developer time and decided that time would be better spent on a different feature or on fixing bugs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. For one thing, it's not complicated. For another, it's one on a long list of standard features missing from the iphone that were introduced only after great delay.
You realise that lots of small tasks can quite easily take more time than a few large ones? I would much rather they spend time getting the large things right than fucking about making sure I can change my desktop rather than receive send an SMS.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they've managed to design and ship one of the least reliable phones for actually using as a phone. So apparently they don't give a damn about arbitrary major features either. And if you just say "Well, the features they shipped with - those are what they cared about, and you should be satisfied with that," well that's pretty useless too, isn't it? I mean, if some company released a word processor without support for bold type, because they spent time getting the large things like saving a document t
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they've managed to design and ship one of the least reliable phones for actually using as a phone. So apparently they don't give a damn about arbitrary major features either.
While I know geeks love to bash them for this, I don't think I've ever met a single iPhone user (yes, even 4 users) who has an issue with their phone working well as a phone. Looking at it too, I don't see any issue - are there really phones out there that are easier than simply making one gesture and typing a few letters from the name of the person you want to call?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand how the development process works?
No, you're right, I realize I was speculating about what was going on when I don't even know how the industry works, let alone what was going on with that specific instance. Having said that, I'm skeptical that every feature that was left out and added back later was purely due to the development process and deadlines. I think some non-essential but standard features were saved for a later time so that apple could offer them later for more publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
BS. Apple doesn't need to resort to such methods to get publicity. They already have more than they could have imagined.
Re: (Score:2)
You really believe that not being able to change the background initially was because of control and not simply because they had limited developer time and decided that time would be better spent on a different feature or on fixing bugs?
I believe you can look at the iphone (and almost all apple products) as if they were being tailor-made for SJ himself. I say this in a respectful way, and in fact it appears to be a very successful strategy since the man obviously has fairly good and well-accepted taste in what makes a great device.
I would suggest you are correct in that certain seemingly essential features were dropped because SJ either didn't think it was necessary or like you said, prioritized other features. In the case of the ability
Re: (Score:2)
Not fast tracking a client for an online service still in a limited trial phase is the same as sabotage?
Not actually what I said, was it?
Re: (Score:2)
No major holidays, and not about Facebook (Score:2)
Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?
The app was submitted ON the 4th. What "major holidays" were from July 4th to today?
It's not like Apple has any kind of relationship with Facebook. Microsoft does, and I would still be fairly certain that even Microsoft would accept it to Windows Phone 7 app store.
Who said it's about Apple's relationship with Facebook? It's about Appl
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the Google maps app that comes with every iPhone? Or the fact that Google employees use either Linux or Macs, and not Windows PCs?
People seem to want a soap opera with every relationship. Each company may have issues with the direction of the other, due to vastly different business models, but "antagonistic" describes human relationships.
Re: (Score:2)
The app was submitted ON the 4th. What "major holidays" were from July 4th to today?
Actually in the European sense, the major holiday was the week of the 4th - in that a lot of people take that week off, undoubtedly app store reviewers too.
However my money is still on the poster who said that he thought the delay was because of a flood of Lion apps on the app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Read the original announcement [google.com] again, and check the date.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems silly to expect larger v1 apps to be approved as quickly as the average shovelware. It's obviously going to contain a lot more new code and functionality than the average app.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is not news. It is merely an additional opportunity for us all to beg for invites. me@gmail.com pretty please? Oh, shucks! They are on to us...
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Google do not like each other even though they share some board of directors. Google lost out on really valuable Nortel patents (which could have immunized Google against threats of lawsuits against Android) to a consortium of companies that was funded in large part by Apple. Also, don't forget that Apple is also suing HTC, Samsung, and other large manufacturers and importers of Android smartphones.
Perversely, Microsoft makes more money off Android than it does off Windows Phone 7. It's estimated
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, how is this even remotely news? Why would Apple not approve Google+ app
Because Apple maliciously chose to block Google's previous apps (Voice, Latitude etc) due to their spat with google, abusing their power over the iOS marketplace to attempt to shut out a competitor. So they may have chosen to block Google+ with some spurious explanation too. Thus the fact that it was accepted is news as Apple may have become a bit more reasonable with their reviewing process.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it be important to note that it took twice as long as statistically approval process takes, especially when there were major holidays during that timeframe?
Nothing to do with statistics - this is clearly a high profile app, so your first level drone isn't going to approve it herself. That means it has to be bumped up to the higher level panel which inevitably takes a bit longer.
Nothing to see here - just an artifact of the approval process.
Re: (Score:2)
>Why would Apple not approve Google+ app when there are Facebook app and tons of other social networks apps?
Retaliation for the million and one proxy wars they have with Google right now? Not sure if you guys know about this thing new called Android, but its pretty hot, and Apple is competing against it the only way it knows how: via patent lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the Apple app tester was the last geek in Silicon Valley not to have a Google+ account?
Is there any reason not to believe that this was not just a little pissing contest between the masters of the high-tech universe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the app approval take so long? Did Google fail to comply with the requirements? Did Apple think it might contain malware or something? What is the problem here?
An extra week? Maybe caused by holidays, sickness, a couple of tougher calls that were ahead of it in the queue... this is a complete non-story.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably just took them that long to get an invite to G+ so they could test it.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more important... why couldn't an iphone user just access Google+ from its web browser? Do you really need a dedicated app?
They could use it through safari, but certain features were lacking. Photo uploading from the iphone, and the chat feature "huddle" didn't work before.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? There's a a feature called "huddle".
I wonder if huddle.com are happy about that...
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? There's a a feature called "huddle".
I wonder if huddle.com are happy about that...
I doubt they have any say in it, huddle is just a word.
Re:!news (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know they were dragging their feet on this? I bet that the google + app is more than twice as complicated as the average app on the iPhone, especially when you consider all the total bullshit fart apps that probably take minutes to approve or deny. Whats more it makes extensive use of a lot of features, it communicates externally, it uses the camera for stills and video and probably also the GPS system. These are sensitive areas and even a cursory check to make sure the app is doing what it claims to do is going to take time. There is a lot of ground to cover there that is unnecessary in some other apps. I'm sure apple has some automated tools that tell the people doing the approval what APIs are being used and ones that are not using many important APIs probably get approved a lot faster.
Basically, you have no idea if this is reasonable or not, you have simply decided that it was unreasonable so you can complain about it.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know they were dragging their feet on this? I bet that the google + app is more than twice as complicated as the average app on the iPhone, especially when you consider all the total bullshit fart apps that probably take minutes to approve or deny...
But what then would I complain about? I mean, come on! Steve Jobs is worse than Gates, right?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know they were dragging their feet on this? I bet that the google + app is more than twice as complicated as the average app on the iPhone, especially when you consider all the total bullshit fart apps that probably take minutes to approve or deny.
As an iOS dev, I wish people would stop perpetuating this myth. Applications are complex, difficult things to develop on every single platform, everyone seemingly having an expectation that "oh it's only an iOS app, all it'll do is fart" makes it very difficult to convince people that if they want their app made well it'll take a little time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course no one considers the fact that they are backlogged with iOS5 apps. They immediately assume the worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course no one considers the fact that they are backlogged with iOS5 apps. They immediately assume the worst.
I don't think anyone 'assumed the worst' at all so im not sure how you interpreted those posts to give you that impression, the 'worst' it got was someone asking why it took so long, not jumping to any conspiracy theory conclusions or anything like that. I'd say the upcoming iOS5 release probably is the reason for the delay, I wonder if other developers are experiencing longer-than-usual approval times (not suggesting any conspiracy, just wondering).
Re: (Score:2)
Need I go on?
Re: (Score:2)
Need I go on?
None of that is even in this comment thread so isn't relevant, you've just gone and taken a bunch of irrational replies from other places (that likely also contained perfectly rational rebuttals, hence the reason for a comment thread).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are all from this article (just read below), which is what makes it relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are all from this article (just read below)
Hence 'comment thread'. But if you want to make a point about people assuming the worst then the obvious thing to do is to reply to those people rather than the people doing exactly the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was a reply to Anonymous (second in this thread), and an agreement with the third poser in the thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the app approval take so long?
Did Google fail to comply with the requirements?
Did Apple think it might contain malware or something?
What is the problem here?
See, no 'assuming the worst' at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If apple.com were an invite-only social network released publicly just a few weeks ago and rate-limiting subscriptions I guess there would be no comparison, right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So perhaps part of this delay was Apple telling Google to get their shit together and publish a decent app before they would approve it.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny that they don't tell the thousands of half-assed game developers who sell buggy iPhone games to "get their shit together". Dinofarm Games is just the one of the worst offenders. When you buy a $5 iPhone game, you've got about a 1 in 8 chance that it doesn't have bugs that make it completely unplayable.
I notice the worst one I ever saw, a game called "Rebellion" that
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, maybe it was Google getting their shit together all on their own.
What I cant understand is why apple had a buggy version in their hands to being with, I would expect google to not release the app to apple until they had thoroughly tested it (not that it would be bug free, but at least not a mess).
It is possible, however, that google was actively working with apple on this, providing pre-release versions for feedback to help the approval process along and avoid any issues. Of course if we assume
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the reason for it taking so long was because Apple was deciding whether it was worth it to allow a buggy app to be released to the world.
They've never had that standard before with the app store, not sure why they would start all of a sudden.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they do. It's right in the developer guidelines that they verify if apps are stable (aren't crashing all the time and they do what they are supposed to do).
http://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guidelines.html [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple have rejected low quality apps for almost two years.
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20090807-apple-cleans-up-app-store-rejects-low-quality-apps.html [smartcompany.com.au]
And they openly admit to rejecting buggy apps:
Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.
From http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/ [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Google+ app also crashes immediately after signing in and clicking on Stream under iOS5. Apparently version 1.0.1.1809 was supposed to be more stable. Unfortunately that's the version that's also crashing for me under iOS 5.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20080767-501465.html [cbsnews.com]
Mild censorship (Score:2)
I understand Apple's philosophy of only allowing the best apps in their istore. However, what they don't realise is that exactly the same can be achieved with decent rating system if it's done relatively well (Slashdot, or download.com though not perfect, spring to mind). That way, people can choose the best, and we don't have a mild form of censorship. It also cuts out the maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
Aww that's just Apple being Apple. They understand how to make your user experience better than you do.
Re: (Score:3)
This requires aging and use before an app can be determined to be good and/or malware-free. Many early adopters will get the short end of the stick which they will blame on Apple instead of their own idiocy.
Apple took the approach that made the most business sense because it also keeps up the reputation of their products, and *that* is their goal here. The same cannot be done with Slashdot's rating system.
Re: (Score:2)
what they don't realise is that exactly the same can be achieved with decent rating system
Please cite an example of a competing app store which has been anywhere near as successful and generated $2.5bn in revenue for developers by using such a rating system.
To help Apple 'realise' I'll then drop them a note with the details to apple.com/feedback
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon, I hear that a lot of people buy applications there and better yet, they get something called a physical disk that they can resell later if they want
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mild censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand Apple's philosophy of only allowing the best apps in their istore.
Have you been on the appstore lately? Since its inception it's been filled to the brim with crap. Finding decent apps consists of downloading featured apps or looking at the top 100 list. Anything beyond that is probably junk. Make no mistake the app approval process is all about control of the content on the app store, not the quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been on the appstore lately? Since its inception it's been filled to the brim with crap. Finding decent apps consists of downloading featured apps or looking at the top 100 list. Anything beyond that is probably junk. Make no mistake the app approval process is all about control of the content on the app store, not the quality.
While I do not dispute your assertion in general, it implies that Apple's review process does nothing to improve matters. Which is very easily to verify if you just look at the free-for-all Android Market. And guess what? The amount of crap there is so overwhelming that App Store is a Japanese rock garden in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so on either platform you can find good stuff in the top 100, and lots of garbage after that. What benefit does Apple bring?
This sounds like complaining that you ran a Google search and hit the next button to get to page 185, and you found a lot of irrelevant stuff.
I don't look at the garbage in the Android market, just like you don't look at the garbage in the App Store. The difference is that if I want I can install an alternative Email client or browser....
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that if you do a search on something you're interested in, e.g. "RPG", in App Store you'll find most results to be relevant, even if some might be crappy. In Android Market, you'll find a few actual hits interspersed between spam submissions (same app submitted N times, slightly renamed) and downright malware and porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Er...there are plenty of alternative browsers on the App Store. What are you on about? I personally prefer Atomic (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/atomic-web-browser-browse/id347929410?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4)
Email clients? ... well I don't know because I've never looked. So you might have a point there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely what leads you to believe that Apple doesn't realize this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because I really want to run wireshark on my freaking phone.
iPhone ONLY. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's why it took so long.
I believe part of the criterion for approval is it must work on the iPad (using 1x and 2x mode for non-iPad, non-Universal apps) and possibly iPod Touch as well (unless it uses features that are iPhone only - e.g., SMS, dialer). Perhaps most of the 2 weeks (which I thought was the average time for app approval - has Apple gotten the turnaround down to 1 week already?) was spent dicking around with Google on why their app only wo
Re:iPhone ONLY. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a separate ipad app, it's still awaiting approval by apple
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Real question is why would you need an app? These are websites, they ought to just be tailored for specific mobile devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Real question is why would you need an app? These are websites, they ought to just be tailored for specific mobile devices.
A mobile website can't access the camera to upload a photo, or send you push notifications when you get a reply, for starters. Facebook's mobile website is good, but there are uses for a separate app.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought these problems were solved for iOS devices back when Apple wasn't even going to let you write real apps.
On platforms with flash this ought to be solved with flash.
WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Checking the app's plist, it's iPhone only because Google's developer on it decided that it would require the following:
- gps (includes GSM/CDMA iPads)
- location-services (all devices since wifi can give you some form of a fix)
- sms (iPhone)
- telephony (iPhone)
- wifi (all devices)
As the only items which match all of it are iPhones, that's all it'll install on. Now why they decided it required telephone and sms, and didn't just gracefully downgrade when they're lacking, I have no idea. It's kind of sloppy.
Re:iPhone ONLY. (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet my computer does not have all of those and they still allow me on G+.
Re: (Score:2)
You can perfectly well just use the mobile web app from Mobile Safari. So far as I can see, the only reason to get an app is to have push notifications (it does have them, I hope?).
Re: (Score:2)
It also gives you photo uploads. And yes, it has notifications.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they've got 'app permissions' and 'device requirements' muddled up, if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
I might understand it if G+ on the web had any use for sms or telephony... but it doesn't. It'd be a pretty easy check to not enable certain functionality and then it's no diff from the website. And if they're doing an iPod/iPad version anyway, they won't have those features available either.
iPhone-only (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Google dev decided that they absolutely needed sms and telephony, and the app shouldn't work if those two items weren't there. At least they specified such in the proper way, so it'll at least tell you at install-time that you're SOL instead of bombing out randomly.
Approval time is around 2 weeks for all right now (Score:5, Insightful)
So? (Score:3, Informative)
I loathe Apple. There's been evidence time and again of their questionable (to put it mildly) business tactics. However, I fail to see why this matters in any way whatsoever. In the end, Apple still approved it. Sure, they took a while. Perhaps there was a reason? They could just pull a Facebook and try to impede G+ by not allowing it at all (though in the end it wouldn't do much). ...or we can all be outraged in typical /. fashion at how evil this corporation is, regardless how pedantic the reason might be.
Yeah, let's go with that.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying Google, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft and others are all really nice people who play fair with others?
Google's Android is the main competitor to iOS, they are entitled to closely examine Google+ just in case they have slipped in something that would hurt Apple's own business.
Perhaps if Apple, Google and Microsoft all stuck to just building OSes and let everyone else do the software then things would be fairer.
Re: (Score:2)
just in case they have slipped in something that would hurt Apple's own business.
Personally, I don't think it's possible to hurt Apple's business. They have a near religious following that can see no wrong in Apple or their tactics. If Apples products started exploding and removing people's appendages in the process, these same amputee's would go right back to Apple to get a replacement, and pay to dollar for it in the process, just so they could log back onto /. to defend Apple's honor.
I've been around a long time, but I don't recall ever seeing anything like it. Certainly, I like Appl
Is it any suprise this is from"Android Power" blog (Score:4, Insightful)
the author clearly states his bias - the name of the blog is called "Android Power". His bio states he's out to irk apple fans.
there is no information in the article whether the delay is Apple's fault or Google's fault. Yes, you can have delays in the approval process of your own doing, not because of a conspiracy that Apple caused.
And all in all, google+ is not even a service that's available to the majority of people. It's in limited beta, meaning that the affected user base who didn't have access to the "delayed" client is small.
Slashdot using trolling titles now? (Score:2)
Slashdot must be hard up on money or something to post such an incendiary topic title?
2 weeks from submissions to Apple to release is hardly worthy of a "FINALLY", 2 weeks is about the normal lenth of time for new app review by Apple.
stability? (Score:2)
Maybe it took so long to get through because the Apple people kept having it crash on them.
I experienced my first crash using the Google+ app for 2 min... I mean... I know Google is the "Beta" Company but come on now! Between the few friends I have on Google+ with iPhones, and myself, I think we've racked up maybe 10 to 15 crashes on the first afternoon of use. We've also experienced issues with it properly updating comments and such.
Hopefully they will get crackin and improve the stability quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Suggestion was to delete and reinstall.
Re: (Score:2)
From the developers [google.com]:
Canada? (Score:2)
Not available on the Canadian app store. Is it only in the US?
This is ridiculous.
oh the excitement ! (Score:2)
So I was looking at the program on my iPhone and ready to download it when it suddenly disappeared from the store. That was about 3 hours ago when 400 users said it seemed OK.
Now it's back at the store and I'm downloading it. About 900 users gave it the same average (3 of 5 stars).
I have no idea what I'll do with it, but I suppose it's a bit of history that I can tell the grandchildren I was a part of. Damn shame I missed Woodstock.
Woohoo, it's here! And it wants a username and password and god knows what e
I bet... (Score:2)
Cause y'know, if you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Has created" != "has been published on the store". Particularly because the most newsworthy part of the article is that it took longer than normal to get the app approved, so a search in the apps won't tell you whether or not Google has *created* an iPad-specific version that is currently going through the approval process.
Re: (Score:2)
By real computer I assume you mean overpriced POS.
Unless you are going to argue that a $1,000 custom-built gaming pc isn't a real computer.
Re: (Score:2)
ok to be fair i am using a gen 2 mc model but i am runing ios 4.2.1 so again I say WTF, I really like google+ but since i mainly use my touch for facebook linkedin twitter and wordpress, i really don't want to have to use the mobile web page all the time. but I guess I am just whining.
No, its not fair at all, since the hardware is identical, minus the telephony peripheral which I'm sure the app doesn't use. Even my brand new ipod touch running the latest ios won't run it. I'm currently researching my jailbreaking options to see if I can fool the app into running, balanced against the fact that the screenshots of the app don't look much different than just using safari...
Re: (Score:2)
So, in summary, you were trying to ship an app that replicates the functionality of "add to home screen" in safari, then apple made you remove that too, leaving you with ... ? An icon and a name?
We sell 10,000 seat licenses to large banks -- nobody is going to pay for that with a Visa through their iTunes account.
I guess this explains why there's no Treasury Direct app. No one wants to buy multiple $10K federal treasury bonds thru itunes. I haven't bought on treasury direct since rates dropped to about zero (in other words, several years), maybe they do have an app? Do stock trading apps like "td-ameritrade" require you