-
Website
http://www.scripting.com/ -
Original page
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/09/13/whyIphoneIsAnUreliablePlat.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
The instability made me question the reliability I could offer others. Choosing not to build that service has been an extremely wise decision. If they prove reliable later, we'll see.
With Apple's licenses and recent moves therein, I'm faced with a similar issue (I'll keep the app a secret for now).
It's nice to be the 800 pound gorilla, but you should be good to the people with bananas.
Furthermore instability is more a function of your ability to develop well for the iPhone than anything the phone itself has doing. You have lost valuable time learning the ins and outs of developing a stable and robust application for the iPhone, it takes time to know how to do things well on any platform.
As for taking a moment to validate whether an app will be worthwhile or allowed on a platform before investing time and money... It's fool hardy to recommend diving in without analysis.
And if developers aren't happy with Apple, they are free to move on and develop for Android or Palm or Windows Mobile. ... just like my product rejected at Walmart could be pitched to Kmart or Target.
Apple's very wrong here. On three separate counts:
(1) They control 100% of the process of putting software on the iPhone legally, and they rejected this app for supposedly duplicating functionality of one of their products. Nothing in their iPhone Developer rules prohibits this.
(2) They are operating very inconsistent and arbitrarily. There are other apps on the store that duplicate functionality of their apps.
(3) But the worst of it all is the lack of communication. They wait weeks before rejecting a submitted app. They allow no appeal method. They've been operating in a manner that not only displays a lack of communication, it displays a lack of interest to communicate.
Dave, I know what you are saying.
I'm one who was working on a Cocoa Touch app since April. Applied for the program the day after they announced it - only to be put on hold until July 11. I participate in a SDK mailing list with other NDA coders, and started having doubts about releasing my app (I'm not looking to quit my well-paying day job) when I started hearing about the issues everyone was having with getting upgrades approved and with App Store comments.
This was the tipping point for me. The iTunes exposure and lack of needing to set up credit card urchases simply do not outweigh the arbitrary and overbearing control Apple wants. I'll probably continue working on Cocoa apps because Objective-C is a fun language and the Frameworks on the Mac are really good. But I'll also consider moving into something a bit less... controlled.
The Internet (web) may well be the platform without a vendor, but it does not offer a realistic route for small developers to make money on end-user applications. There's something refreshing about being able to sell an application to end users for a modest amount of money. It reminds me of the early days of PC software. You create something that users find useful, and they pay you for it. Incredible.
No need to explain. Apple is redefining the word. Platform is indeed a surface to build on. Not an arena to monopolize.
I'm sure that Apple will approve the Podcaster app for store inclusion by this evening as a result.
Boycotts are tricky things. The myth of the magic marketplace in which customer needs somehow reliably compel manufacturer behavior has little to do with reality. Fwiw, I once sat down with one of the owners of a then major software company (Quark) at a time that I was representing a hell of a lot of dollars (I wouldn't have been invited to sit with him otherwise) and went over flaws he knew were alienating many of his customers and that he knew were solvable. But for reasons of corporate culture and other "exogenous" variables he blew me off. Politely, but even so.
Software is a quirky business. Platforms triply so. Especially one like the iPhone that's so closely tied to both hardware considerations *and* partnerships with companies like AT&T. Unless your proposed boycott were to be massive, focused, and well publicized, you would be a very little fish in a very big pond indeed.
Having said that I have been penalized for buying first generation apple products. (iPhone .. yes i sucked it up). I hope Apple learns from Microsoft's mistakes and learns to be humble as it grows! I don't see signs of this happening. I absolutely hate the lock down to a network strategy, time will tell that it was the biggest mistake! I for one will not buy a first generation apple product again.
I guess the bigger question is how does a company / service evolve a good service to something bigger that lasts without being evil? I remember Tara hunt talking about it in a session. Apparently Zappos has done this successfully and they seem to have a pulse of their customer.
As for twitter you gotta give them credit that they have finally been able to keep the service stable.. You are right in asking them to open up. I wish they have an open discussion with the community to open and do the right thing without compromising on the stability and the opportunity to make money.
Or as usual we wait and hope that market takes care of things ..
Users should push Apple to allow programs with overlap but specialized functionality like improved podcasting handlers (I'd like to use that myself). But in the meantime developers with ideas just have to consider where the application they are thinking of writing fits in the ecospace, how close it is to something Apple is already doing.
It's reasonable to say it's a restricted platform, which we already knew (just not the extent). But to claim it's not a platform because some areas are off limits - that doesn't make any sense.
In the end I am more concerned about Apple disallowing applications based on taste (like the whoopie cushion kinds of things) rather than competing with Apple - because it's a harder to judge what is tasteful in Apple's eyes.
The iPhone is now positioned to -possibly- be THE platform that defines post-desktop computing. It has implementation flaws, and it has some flaws that are because of the technical state of the art. Those are fixable, but if they don't get how they have to BEHAVE, well, that's not fixable.
Apple is understandably concerned about apps that replace core functionality - like the way iTunes and the iPhone handle podcasts - particularly if they have something in the pipeline that will do the same thing. Too many alternatives or ways of doing things can be confusing to ordinary users.
The fact is, choice and freedom have a price. It seems that some computer geeks will never get that.
If that's "why" they rejected it, then wouldn't they reject other apps that compete with their offering? I guess I'm saying that's not why they rejected it.
But, by your reasoning, Apple is right to turn down any app that brings a new feature to the iPhone, if they have an inkling that somewhere down the line they might implement a similar feature themselves ? How, as a developer, can you be expected to anticipate that ?? It's not like Apple publishes a thorough roadmap of what they plan to do way in advance...
At least, Nintendo and MSFT don't advertise their game consoles as "platforms", they're totally closed ecosystems. As such, they let developers pitch their concepts ahead of time, to get an OK before they invest into turning them into products. There is no way now to know ahead of time if your app will be OKed before you deliver the final product to Apple. Totally unacceptable, worst-case scenario monopoly at play...
I fail to see how the "choice and freedom" you quote relate to Apple's policy. Except as in less choice for the user, and next to zero freedom for developers. Reading this unpublished/unpredictable/predatory policy as Apple's way of protecting its users is seriously delusional.
I refuse to use or buy Apple products now. It's a shame, because the original mac is what started me on my software journey. But their vertical monopoly is untenable. If only Linux geeks could actually design a computer that doesn't take an IS certification to run, I'd say f- you to both windows and apple, but I'm stuck .
Apple has certain plans for how to make money on the iPhone, don't expect anyone else being allowed to try to make money doing the same kind of software or service.
If you want an open and free system use Android.
Oh and here's my two cents on the platform discussion: http://www.myphillynetwork.com/content/what-pla...
Would you read a book this way?
But with apple at least you know it has a chance to make it, because the platform itself will not completely disappear.
What if google stops android which they seemed like few months back. Nokia could easily abandon sumbian and go the other for the touch devices.
The only operating system that would work well is windows mobile but who wants to develop for that.
This was always the case with apple. Ask any number of addon makers. But that didn't make anyone go over to windows mobile or zune.
Why blame Apple? Didn't Facebook do the same thing?
Benchmark: the FDA
What Apple does sort of reminds me of the drug approval process where a company needs to do clinical trials and submit a NDA. When the FDA reviews the NDA, they look at the safety and the effectiveness of the drug.
If there's a statistical significance and there're no safety issues and it's equal or better than existing drugs on the market then it should get marketing approval.
The problem is you won't know how good it's until after you invested 10 to 15 years of research and $300 - 500 million dollars. Even then, you won't know if it's good enough for the FDA to give it marketing approval because how do you define "better"
One of the problems is : how do you compare different side effects, different endpoints and what should the endpoint be when you focus on let's say high cholesterol because as it rurns out lowering the LDL cholesterol level ain't the magic bullet anymore.
What the FDA does is give the companies guidance on what to expect and on how to proceed.
It wasn't like that a few years ago and it's still not perfect but it's getting better.
That being said, my vote is on Google's Android platform, not because it's Google but it's the right thing to do but I understand Apple's point of few as well and the way to proceed when you don't want every application (including malicious ones) on your platform is probably to give guidance early on.
That's how the FDA does it.
The big difference is that the FDA ain't the one who develops drugs!
When the FDA doesn't know what to do with a NDA, when they're in doubt, they leave it up to a scientific advisory board who are industry insiders and they get to vote on it.
I prefer to be a web developer who master the whole distribution to the final customer... Applications for the web in a mobile format are cool and you develop once for all the mobile phones...
Competition is a good thing for users, Apple and developers if it is a level playing field.
No every developer has problems with the App Store approval process like the few you cite.
Apple does need subjective criteria for approving apps - in addition to the general criteria it specified. This is to allow flexibility. The app store needs to be a compelling experience for the consumer - first and foremost - not the developer - though that is arguably present as well. Thus apps in good taste, that won't water down the iPhone experience can be a subjective criteria - resulting in a flexibility Apple needs to maintain its image and the quality of the consumer experience.
Of course the iPhone is a platform - despite your very arbitrary criterion that the platform vendor should have no control over the platform in approving an application. All you have to look it is how many developers are developing applications for the platform, how successful the platform is, and you cannot deny that the iPhone is a platform.
The iPhone platform is currently THE most successful mobile application platform in the world. It sells more applications in a month than all of the cellphone companies put together. It will soon be a billion dollar a year - or more - marketplace for applications.
The Internet IS REGULATED. You just don't see it. For example, many videos are formatted using Microsoft's Windows Media format. They cannot be played on every browser. Many companies use Microsoft's .asp HTML generators - which discriminate against 3rd party browsers by giving them defective HTML - thus generating good HTML code only for Microsoft's own browers and some others.
Your words "least regulated" is a telling point. The fact that the Internet IS REGULATED by your remark means that the Internet IS NOT a platform, by your own words.
Your article should be titled "iPhone Application Approval Process is Unreliable". This is much more true to the mark than your highly misleading original title.
Developers could go the jailbroken route, but Apple keeps trying to thwart that as well with their updates. The best route to go is to develop web apps when possible, or just forget the iPhone and develop on a real open platform like Android, OpenMoko, or if you don't mind proprietary platforms Windows Mobile.
"The app store needs to be a compelling experience for the consumer - first and foremost - not the developer - though that is arguably present as well."
When an app comes out that does something that Apple's competing app doesn't do or does it better, and Apple rejects that, is that really providing a compelling experience? Or flat out blocking other compelling experiences except Apple's? That's the heart of the problem.
"Not every developer has problems with the App Store approval process like the few you cite."
Not yet, but the list does seem to be getting bigger, and Apple is leaving these folks with some fairly lousy alternatives(web apps, ad hoc, jailbreaking) other than abandoning the iPhone for real, less restrictive platforms.
"All you have to look it is how many developers are developing applications for the platform, how successful the platform is, and you cannot deny that the iPhone is a platform."
Let's accept your criterion for a platform here. Here you have a platform that requires approval for an application to be installed on more than 100 devices, and can be rejected on grounds of uselessness or bad taste at best, and for direct competition at worst. If I were to call it a platform, it would be prepended with the adjective "authoritarian".
1. The "I am rich" app clearly stated what is was and was not misleading but Apple pulled it simply to save face as it was a political stab at them.
2. The "Pull my finger" app had a ton more utility than "Bubbles" or "Bubble Wrap" and was pulled simply because Apple was concerned about their image.
3. Denying "Podcaster" is the worst of all though because it is blatant anti-competition. If I were MicroSoft, I'd get busy funding a WMP for the iPhone, wait for Apple to deny it, sue Apple for anti-trust, and let the bad press do it's work.
When Apple introduced the iPhone, a developer from the audience asked if it will have a VOIP app and Steve Jobs tersely replied "Write one!" Now we see Apple won't approve VOIP apps. For those like me who bought an iPhone for the promise of being able to use VOIP, well, I can't begin to express my disappointment and I certainly won't buy another one.
Apple is going down a road here that may well see them going down in history as the only company to have the world at their feet three times (original Macintosh, iPod, iPhone) and ultimately blow it.
Resolved: Apple is right to curate the App Store
http://counternotions.com/2008/09/15/app-store/
Just look at the Android from Google and the top 10 apps for it - hopefully t-mobile will really release that first phone next month as the rumor goes so we can actually see it - that were not only was encouraged by Google to write to the platform, Heck, Google dolled out $300,000 to each of the top 10 and $125,000 to each of the next 10 and so on.
Google will win the phone O/S was because their brain is in the right place: between their ears. Apple created the iPod. Great. Now it is iPod on the iPhone. what is great about that? it is a phone, it is a connected device, do something useful with this fact... Apple didn't so a couple of guys did it for them on a software named TuneWiki. Is it on the App store? no. Does people want it? sure do, the guys claim a million iPhone users only on jailbroken phones. Is that the demise of TuneWiki? no. they won $300,000 from Google, and you can bet your hat that it will be on the Google phone. Will the TuneWiki guys wait for the Apple wind to blow their way? well, they are already on the 3G jailbroken iPhones - but let me guess: Apple don't want a competitor to the iPod even when on the connected device TuneWiki runs circles around them.
Too bad. Apple created the personal computer. they are a marginal player now. Apple created the first mega hit music player. They are leveling off and Sansa is cheaper and Zune has a radio and it is not half as bad as it was. Apple created this new market that 'it is OK to have music on the phone'. they will top off and will always be a marginal player of the 3 billion cell phone market.
There is an excellent Newsweek article about their untamed arrogance. walk to their store. arrogance. Try to get a question asked. Arrogance. they behave like the consumer is an annoyance. Apple is on eof the most innovative companies in the history of man kind and the most arrogant. Their anti trust practices are worst than Microsoft ever was. They are chocking innovation by others, they empower a robbery of a cell phone bills. I wish them well but I will buy Android phone when it is out.
I agree, it's not a platform it's a vehicle, a vehicle for Apple - with a sign "driver reserves right to remove anyone from vehicle at any time for any reason", and judging by their non-responsiveness to emails probably another saying " do not talk to driver while vehicle is in motion".
If you start looking at the licensing restrictions on compatible hardware they are attempting to enforce via patent law you'll note the same kind of tactics. Remarkably Windows Mobile has none of this kind of issue - you can write anything you want for their phones, build any kind of hardware device to plug it into and they just work - all without detriment to phones and the precious (must have precious!) carrier networks. Funny that... So in this case I have to side with the anti-Apple folks here who are crying anti-trust!
There's an old saying, so old it's quoted in Latin - "Caveat emptor!" - meaning "Buyer beware", sounds like it is still as true today as when it was coined.
Teach people to live without control, instead of helping them to be controlled!
what are the uggs? ugg uk