The New York Times: Stanza: “The iPhone or iPod Touch can act as an electronic book reader.”
— Tip of the Week: Turn Your iPhone Into an e-Book
Why are you submitting updates that do nothing but remove features? Do you hate your users or something?
Mon, 02/01/2010 - 18:08 — bugmenot2010
I really don't understand developers sometimes. You had a perfectly good app which really needed no further adujustment, and you for some reason foist an update on unsuspecting customers that just makes it worse again?
Are you deliberately trying to give people incentives to turn to piracy? Because that's all moves like this are going to achieve; I didn't update to 2.1 and I assure you I never will, but if I had I would right now be jailbreaking by iPhone again to install a cracked version of 2.0 to replace the crippled version I has been tricked into downloading. Sure this is a free app so you wouldn't be losing money from it, but you're going to lose a lot of downloads and you'll definitely be getting a lot of bad reviews for this.
App developers love to whine about piracy, but when they do things like trick people into downloading "updates" that remove fuctionality, add advertisements, delete saved data, and generally reduce usability, what can you honestly expect?
And of course the app description never has any information on WHY these changes were made.
So what is it? Do you hate us? Do you want to make us pay for features you've removed? Do you think doing something stupid to get attention, and the resulting bad publicity, is favorable to not getting enough publicity? Or is this maybe just a temporary removal while you fix a bug (and if so, when are you going to fix it and update again with USB tranfer and anything else you've removed re-added)?
About Us | Site Map | RSS Feeds | Media Info | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2009 Lexcycle, Inc. All rights reserved. 
Unsure of some of the arguments here...
Given that you can use Stanza (or eReader or others) to fetch all sorts of content independent of iTunes, and for FREE, I don't understand the argument that says removing USB transfer is some Machiavellian scheme by Apple to secure its cash flow!
Plus, I can still transfer that content via wi-fi with local network between my desktop and the i-device, so the arguments about the USB transfer option being an Apple plot don't seem to hold water.
This is such a minor feature for Stanza that it seems a lot of brouhaha over nothing-- a tempest in a teapot!
Now, if Apple were to ban all other ereading apps but iBooks, that would fit these arguments... or if Apple were to somehow permit buying of ebooks only through the iBook store, that, too, would fit the passion and rage flying around on the net about this... but where's the evidence that's going to happen?
I think Apple really wants to sell hardware, especially its new iPad, and that most consumers will use the iBook store, even if other stores are available. And it won't care if people use other ebook reading apps if it leads to book buying at the Apple bookstore!
See this story as well which has an important update http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/02/stanza-ebook-app-maker-says-apple-nixed-usb-transfer.html
"Update #3, 4:36 p.m: In an upcoming iPhone OS release, Apple may be planning to give developers access to multi-use storage space, so apps like Stanza can maintain USB-transferable files, writes Chris Foresman of Ars Technica."
Here's Foresman's story, so the USB transfer may not only NOT be going away but may be coming back to fully support app developers in spades!
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/02/apple-kills-usb-syncing-for-apps-but-alternative-is-coming.ars
In response, the PUC has
In response, the PUC has agreed to hold separate privacy specific hearings - with accompanying workshops and public comments - at a date to be determined in mid December. While this is a temporary victory for privacy and consumer advocates, enormous challenges remain. buy cheap airline tickets
I hate the updates
Before I well update now is when I know it's a good updated. I updated the last one and I had nothing but problems. I won't updated until I read that the people on the forums saids everything is okay on it. I still can't download some of the books by Macmillian. I contacted fictionwise.com and they told me to contact Stanza. I hope they make a good update soon.
It is all about control.....
Bottom line - Apple doesn't want ANYONE but themselves to have direct access to
the file system via USB. This is a basic tenet of Apple's design for the devices.
As long as there is no way to access the file system, move data, or install
software except through Apple's iTunes software they have control. And make
no mistake, control is exactly what they plan to keep. In this case, I strongly
suspect that the next version of iTunes will attempt to take over management of
a user's ebook library and content in the same fashion as it currently manages
music and video content. I wouldn't be too surprised to see an attempt to
choke out other software providers that offer a competing product, although it
will most likely be a low key campaign.
The reason why is quite simple - money. There's money to be made here, possibly
a great deal of money, and Apple intends to have the lion's share of it. You can
certainly expect that when Apple's solution for ebook management and reading
is released it will be heavily encumbered with DRM schemes. I'd expect that there
will be a model very similar to the current one for the purchase of audio content
from the Apple store for most books, while short shelf life content like magazines
and newspapers will be available on a subscription basis. In fact, if Apple
controls content from the point of purchase, through the library, and right to
the glass the reader looks at to peruse it, then a much more disturbing model
becomes pretty feasible. The model I'm talking about is "pay per read".
This is seriously scary stuff, and we may well see it before the end of 2010.
One thing that is significant to note here is that Stanza itself was NOT in violation
of Apple's edict - the utilities that allowed users to copy content to the handheld
device via the USB cable were the actual culprits. If Apple came down on Stanza
for this issue, then it is pretty obvious where their motivations lie.
Has anyone from Lexcycle actually addressed this issue with the customer base?
Do we really know that Apple forced this change, or is it all conjecture? Apple
certainly has a clear motive for doing so, but I'd really like to hear from Lexcycle
about the issue.
Michael
This seems to so blatantly
This seems to so blatantly fly in the face of what Jobs and Wozniak originally stood for that it seems hard to believe they could let it happen. It's not like they need the money either; AFAIK, the app store and even the entire iTunes store are barely a drop in the ocean as far as Apple's profits are concerned.
How exactly did they "trick"
How exactly did they "trick" anyone into downloading something? It says right there in iTunes: "What's New in Version 2.1 -- Removed the ability to share books via USB", for one. They made the information available; it isn't their fault if people don't read it.
Moreover, when you download a new version of Stanza, the old one is put in the trash file. Just delete the new one, drag the old one out of the trash, and double-click it -- voila! The previous version is back, in all its USB transfer glory. No need to pirate anything.
I agree that developers often do annoying, tricky things, like adding advertisements into a previously ad-free app. But in this case, they were told by Apple to remove it, and so they did. They're not the only developers who've run into this problem (iStat and other apps with 'free memory' functions, emoji apps, GoodReader and other apps that used to have USB file transfer).
Your complaints would be valid, were they directed at another developer who actually was doing something unscrupulous. As it is, you've screamed at people who've put out an amazing application, for free, and who were given no choice about removing the 'illegal' (in Apple's mind) feature.
Great Post!
I had to join just to tell you. Thank you! I agree with your comments. Just recovered the old stanza version and created a new folder of old apps just incase an "update" is not to my liking. Thanks again Lorata!
To the developers: Great app! I hope you received some monetary compensation. I will strongly consider supporting any future apps you create, free or otherwise. Thank you! Love what you created with Stanza.
how to you access the trash in order to reinstall the old versio
I am not sure how you do this, can you please explain?
Sounds like someone at Apple doesn't know how to do their job...
This app was featured several times by Apple in their "staff favorites" and in the top 10 of their "app store turns 1" feature, and it's existed for months without any issues; I hardly think that would have been the case if one of its key features was con sidered a glaring security issue. It's a long-running app whose features have hardly changed since its creation, and doing something like this isn't even in Apple's best interests.
My guess is that some moron who screwed up a tranfer of one of his files sent a complaint to Apple that the USB transfer "damaged" his hardware/software, and some dumbass grunt the Apple's customer service email half-read it and clicked a button that dispatched an template/automated email to the app devlopers.
Just because they recieved an email doesn't mean they should just keel over and blindly do what it says. They could have contested it, re-explained to Apple exactly what the app does and why they're mistaken in thinking it does anything that could pose a security risk.
At the very worst, the app would be removed for a few days until it was shown that there was nothing wrong with it, and it got re-approved.
Featured or not, existing or
Featured or not, existing or not, policies do change; the fact that something's deemed acceptable at one point doesn't mean it always will be. As a mere end-user, I can't comment on Apple's best interest, but I can't imagine how this goes against it. Sure, it irritates some people who already have the app, but as lovely as Stanza is, it was neither the driving factor, nor a consideration, when I purchased my iPod Touch. I can't imagine I'm in the minority on that, and I can't imagine this is going to drive me away from Apple products in the future. I purchased it knowing they'd placed constraints on device, and I was fully prepared for them to place constraints on the apps as well. I can't imagine this impacts the majority of users, given the number who have wireless networks in their homes. Those who don't, can purchase a wireless card or a USB wireless adapter, and create an adhoc network, using the computer as the access point. If you could drop the money on an iPhone, or an iPod, dropping ten bucks here's not going to break the bank, and if you enjoy Stanza to the degree that I do, and need to transfer from your computer to your iDevice, it's ten bucks well spent.
Just because they've done what Apple told them to doesn't mean they keeled over and acted blindly. For all I know, they did contest it -- and no, at the very worst, the app would be removed permanently. I don't know which disturbs me more -- your railing against the devs (with the rant about what some of them do to users (as if that's not a two-way street, with your rambling about piracy -- as if the removal of an application you didn't pay for is some monumental wrong, or you have some entitlement here! ), your insinuation that they're doing this because they want money, your questioning whether they hate their users, and the patently false claim that there was never information about why the app was changed, OR the fact you really seem to believe that Apple is so easy to reason with, so quick to see the error of their ways!
To clarify a few things: -
To clarify a few things:
- There was no reason listed AT THE TIME I WROTE THAT POST. Since then they've added one, and I thank them for that. :)
- I'm firmly anti-piracy - I've never pirated an app in my life and I've spent over $100 on the app store. I have, however, resorted to using hacky methods to "downgrade" my apps (including in worst case scenarios, jailbreaking and downloading a cracked version of the app), including ones I'd paid for, to a previous version after an update that removed features, added annoying bugs or otherwise crippled it (See GAMELOFT games for some good examples of app developers that don't seem to care much for their users - don't get me wrong they make good apps, but their support and updates suck).
- Apple's SDK has not changed, so there's no reason that what was fine 6 months ago wouldn't be fine today, and I still can't see how they can consider it a security risk. If this is such as risk, why don't they release a PATCH instead of pulling this shit? I understand there's restrictions on apps accessing system files, and I can understand why, but this has nothing to do with that.
The Apple SDK has always
The Apple SDK has always mandated that applications are not able to use the USB cable. I am guessing that they are now just becoming more diligent about enforcing this restriction, and also applying the restriction to the indirect case that Stanza used where it relied on a 3rd party app to handle the USB part. Having said that it is not at all unusual for apple to reject an app for a feature that has been there for months. As it is up to Apple how they interpret their own SDK terms the developer has little comeback.
Then why do app developers put up with shit like this?
You're not the first devs to express frustration at Apple's policies and definitely won't be the last; it amounts to blatant abuse of power. In the corporate world (including software design), we have trade unions for dealing with abusive management. And while I'm fully aware that that metaphor isn't entirely applicable here, have any application developers ever thought of getting together and forming some sort of online movement against these baseless restrictions and the crap treatment they get from Apple? The more I read about this, the more it looks like a smaller scale version of what Microsoft was doing in the late '90s - and they ended up paying dearly for it.
Apps are a major selling point of the iPhone - just look at Apple's ads for it. Which leave me pretty sure that if enough app developers (major ones, in the case of Stanza) got together and raised a ruckus about this, it wouldn't go unnoticed by Apple. At the very least they'd have to make a statement, and possibly negotiate, since bad publicity about their app system would not do wonders for their sales figures, especially with the Nexus One heralding the next generation of Android-based phones over the horizon (possibly the greatest competition Apple has ever faced).
Collective resistance is not going to work in this case
It is pretty obvious that Apple DOES NOT CARE what Lexcycle thinks, or
what is in the best interests of Lexcycle's customers. Apple has already
"tossed its hat into the ring" with respect to the ebook markeplace for
the iTouch/iPhone/iPad platforms. If Lexcycle got angry enough to
abandon the platform altogether it would only clear the decks for
Apple to debut their own product in Stanza's place - and you can bet
your bottom dollar that APPLE'S ebook product will NOT be hamstrung
by the lack of a viable bulk transfer method.
Lexcycle was (and is) in a no-win situation here. Trying to remain competitive
against another player who has access to all the infrastructure support
and features you're specifically banned from using is a pretty difficult
situation to be in.
I fully expect that Apple's ebook reader software will handle migration of
ebooks to the handheld through iTunes - via the USB interface. If this is
the case, then Lexcycle (and anyone else similarly handicapped by this)
would have pretty good grounds for a complaint to the DOJ for unfair
business practices. The situation is very comparable to that in which
Microsoft utilized undocumented interfaces and features within Windows
to make their own Office suite of products more effective - while
denying any of their competitors access to those same services.
Putting all the players on an equal footing for competition would require
that Apple either not use these features or open them up to external
developers (which is, I think, what we want here).
The precedents are already in place - anyone want to play David to
Apple's Goliath?
And yes I know this is mostly
And yes I know this is mostly a rant, but I'm sick of some of the crap I've seen devs pull on users. Y'know, if you want money, there's nothing wrong with asking for it - most people are more than willing to pay up to 4 or 5 dollars for a good application.