[mtholking]

Apple gets 30% of all revenue developers generate, so they aren't really competition.

Name one app that has existed on the App Store that Apple banned because they released their own version of it, and charged for it.

I trust that they want me to succeed to they get 30% of a much larger number.

[megablast]

The banned an app called facetime, just for the name.

They banned rss viewers for a while.

They have not allowed in alternate browsers.

What difference does it make if they charge for it or not?

[refulgentis]

Erm, there's tons of alternate browsers. There just can't be one with it's own JavaScript parser baked in because of the ban on interpreters, and even then they said you can ask to include one in the latest round of SDK revisions.

[megablast]

Is there an alternative browser that does not use WebView, which handles all the html for you?? Apart from Opera of course, which is more an image viewer.

I don't think there is. There is a lot of stuff you can do with UIWebView, which is what all those other apps are doing, like blocking ads, adding tabs, storing stuff offline.

[mtholking]

Apple owns the trademark for 'facetime' so obviously they won't allow an app of the same name.

Those are ludicrous statements, searching for 'rss reader' or 'web browser' returns a myriad of results on the app store.

[megablast]

You are a fool. They banned it in the beginning, then they stopped banning it. All the webbrowsers use iPhones UIWebView.

You are just repeating the first thing you see, rather than doing any research into the matter. There is loads of information out there about problems with Apple banning stuff, if anyone cares enough to actually look.

[chc]

There haven't been any yet that I can recall, but they have cannibalized popular third-party Mac apps before — try searching for Watson or Konfabulator. And their rejection of that picture frame app seemed to be on the basis that it trod on ground they wanted to cover themselves.