I love my iPhone and I love Apple (cue images of flag pins and “I love muh countray!”), but I believe they’re blowing it with the App Store gate keeping. That’s of course not a new opinion. Developers left and right have been decrying the broken process. But there’s nothing like feeling it on your own bones to make the point.
We have a couple of new features in the wing for Campfire. They’ve been done for more than 10 days now. Why haven’t we released them yet? Because the iPhone app Ember needed to have a simple regular expression updated to support the features. We really like Ember, so we decided that holding back the features until this pro forma update went through was prudent. We’re still waiting.
This has made me think about all the ways the app store process sucks and how little we get back in return. The argument I keep hearing for why this terrible process is worth it is quality control. Here’s a breakdown of each argument:
- Applications will be more stable: No they won’t. Echophone still crashes on me all the time. It’s not like the iPhone is immune to crash bugs. And why would it be? You’re writing native Objective-C here. Shit is going to crash every now and then. No 10 minute look-over by a App Store clerk is going to help that.
- The App Store will be free of malware: That’s certainly no given. If you really wanted to be evil, you could very well hide your malice underneath a cute game and have a time bomb or a remote trigger installed. Do you think the App Store clerks are combing through source code to look for security issues? Ha!
- Only good stuff in the App Store: Ha! The App Store has some 140K+ applications. I can guarantee you that the bulk of that is less than average. There are some 100 fart apps for christ sake!
We’re paying for the inconvenience of quality control without the quality part. In fact, lots of software has lower quality because of the App Store process. Developers can’t easily get bug fixes out and they certainly don’t release new versions as often as they otherwise would. This harks back to the era where software was really cumbersome to release on CDs, so you did it much less frequently.
Contrast this with OS X and the web. Both platforms are much more open and on a mac you have very little trouble with stability or malware or even quality. In general, the market is pretty good at sorting this stuff out. If you make a crappy application, people don’t buy or recommend it. And OS X seems to be holding up well as a secure platform compared to, say, Windows, so malware isn’t much of a concern either.
What I think Apple should do instead is to reserve the power to nuke apps that prove troublesome. Have a “if you fuck it up, we’ll yank it” policy rather than a “we’ll review everything poorly and slowly and still not catch it all” policy. They’d be able to get by with a much smaller App Store clerk staff, developers would be thrilled to escape the needless gate keeping, and consumers would enjoy more applications updated more frequently.
What’s there to lose except for the feeling of powah?
Anonymous
on 08 Feb 10We’d better seriously hope Apple never tries to foist the App Store model on OS X. Unfortunately, it looks like that’s the way things are headed.
rick
on 08 Feb 10Malware is a good point. IIRC, Yelp released their monacle feature (augmented reality stuff, using experimental iphone apis) by hiding it from reviewers. You had to shake the phone 3 times to enable the option.
Mike Mayo
on 08 Feb 10It’s funny you posted this today because I just filled out a long survey for the iPhone Developer Program and said basically everything you just said.
creativereason
on 08 Feb 10In this scenario Apple will have to give back money to customers if the product proves faulty and needs to be nuked. Money they’ve (supposedly) already split with the developers. So either they decentralize the app store and it’s a free market and they don’t have to deal with this issue, or they review the apps and give them a stamp of approval.
I get your point, but I think the execution proves tough and the money gets in the way.
The current process lessens their burden of risk.
rick
on 08 Feb 10BTW I mention that only as an example of how one might try to get around the iphone app reviewers. I love the Yelp monacle feature :)
John Topley
on 08 Feb 10So what is your favourite fart app, David? ;-)
JP Toto
on 08 Feb 10I’m inclined to agree. It should be a simple thing to monitor apps, for bandwidth usage especially, and then disable them if they act up. At least then apps would be innocent until proven guilty.
sax
on 08 Feb 10Perhaps open the gate to free apps as a start? Regex the source for any particular content restrictions they want to enforce (filter any obvious kiddie porn), and then watch for abuses to yank.
I’d think their biggest issue would be apps that circumvent their (or ATT’s) revenue streams, such as Google Voice. I expect they’re going to have to pass over that hurdle eventually anyways, though, the same way they had to deal with the fact that DRM was a stupid idea.
Andy
on 08 Feb 10As an iPhone developer and web developer, proponent of open source software, Mac user etc., this argument still hasn’t won me over. Developers are signing up in droves, the phone is still flying off shelves. I sold my 3 year old broken iPhone for over $100. The market is speaking with their wallets. It is a popular phone and popular platform to develop for. The totally open alternative is Android. If they ever do relax this policy, I think app updates are most painful to wait for as a developer (esp. small things like you mention), and I think starting there could make sense.
Derek Reynolds
on 08 Feb 10Would love to see a section in the App Store for unapproved apps. Applications waiting for approval or that just never get approved. You still get your quality assurance with approved apps, but users are able to install any app they desire at their own risk.
Chad
on 08 Feb 10@creativereason 1, if an app is on your device it’s on your device, apple wouldn’t really need to offer those customers a refund if they purchased an application and have it, regardless of it getting pulled from the store. 2, if a dev posts something w/ a truly malicious intent, they’re most likely not going to charge for it, in order to get maximum effect, so refunds are a non-issue. If they are charging for it, then apple has the info needed to go after them legally.
Giles Bowkett
on 08 Feb 10How much money is that feeling of powah worth to Steve Jobs?
Doug Hall
on 08 Feb 10Not to start a political debate here, but the same could be said for government oversight. For example, we don’t really need the FDA to okay beef, since the open market would quickly root out grocers (or grocery chains) who sold contaminated food. If left to its own devices, an open market would eventually alleviate the need for most government oversight. This may not have been the case many years ago, when local news outlets could not be expected to expose negligent merchants. But with the pervasiveness of the internet, that’s no longer a problem.
Chad
on 08 Feb 10I personally think Apple would be better off only reviewing new apps/developers, not every little update they push out. Let devs build up ‘trust’ by releasing non-screwed-up updates and eventually just let them release whatever they want w/o any review.
asdf
on 08 Feb 10Think of how many fart apps would exist if they didn’t have to go through the approval process.
What would be nice would be the option to push your app as unapproved, and give the user an option on the phone to view approved vs. unapproved apps. Even make it default to approved out of the box.
Pradeep
on 08 Feb 10s/loose/lose/. unless it was intentional, of course.
Trevor Squires
on 08 Feb 10Urm… what new feature? Gawd I hope it doesn’t break Propane…
:-)
Trev
Greg Donald
on 08 Feb 10I stopped developing for iPhone. I’m into Android now, couldn’t be happier. Takes 3 seconds to publish an app, not 3 – 6 weeks.
Eric
on 08 Feb 10Techies presume we know what “Quality Control” means.
First off the main point of App review appears to revolve around the UI, not an in depth stability test.
Issues of stability for the application are a little trickier to track down and I’m positive that Apple does not let Apps pass that crash during testing. Maybe they could use the could use the crashreports from actual users to identify and warn developers whose applications are particularly crash prone.
Considering how hard it is for developers, with intimate knowledge of the App itself, to track down and repair some of the crash bugs I doubt Apple could be doing that during review.
Lastly, all you need to do is look at cydia or the other jailbreak stores to see what a no review store might look like. While there are a few gems there most of it’s pretty rough stuff, usually user-facing “quality” is much lower.
Bill
on 08 Feb 10Look at the app store from a consumers point of view. Searching for an app is horrendous, there are no filters and there are 100’s if not thousands of the same app variation. I searched for a match game and I got back a full page of apps. There was no paging, I had no idea how many there were, the next link went on and on.
The voting system is flawed, they should let you vote on several factors. Usability, robustness, fun, useful etc. then put those in as searchable attributes.
Often I will see a app on the top 25 that have 2-3 star rating, WTF.
I do however have faith Apple will make it better. I sure hope so.
Mike Woodhouse
on 08 Feb 10Perhaps cynically I was under the impression that Apple’s insistence on controlling the “experience” was not just about ensuring the purity of UI but also about protecting their various revenue streams, q.v the Google Voice unpleasantness.
Charlie Melbye
on 08 Feb 10@rick The monacle/augmented reality feature probably used private APIs. If they tried something like that right now, the App Store reviewer would instantly know that they used private APIs with an automated scanner that they use on submitted apps. Regarding malware, Apple is very strict with the paperwork when one registers as a developer. The moment that malware is found, Apple would remotely disable the app on every device that it’s installed on, remove the app from sale, and terminate the developer’s membership with the program.
Nathaniel
on 08 Feb 10What you have to realize is that Apple is not keeping a gate to increase quality. They’re keeping a gate to increase their control, and by extension their revenue. The review process isn’t about looking at the quality of the app, but if it disobeys their draconian terms that keep out things like opera mobile, firefox mobile, flash, google voice, skype, etc.
Larry Caine
on 08 Feb 10“Applications will be more stable: No they won’t. ” But it would be far more unstable apps.
“The App Store will be free of malware: That’s certainly no given. ” But would be more malwares than now.
“Only good stuff in the App Store: [...] I can guarantee you that the bulk of that is less than average” But the quality of apps would be worse yet.
App Store is not perfect, but I don’t think the quality of apps would be the same.
Paul Carney
on 08 Feb 10I completely agree that the process of releasing updates is the biggest reason why I (and a lot of other developers) stay away from the App Store. As the browsers get more power, they will be the place where apps run, not on native-running applications tied to the platform. That idea died a long time ago and is on life support again.
Dan Gebhardt
on 08 Feb 10It does feel a bit like the TSA’s screening process, doesn’t it?
George
on 08 Feb 10Hey, at least it’s better than the WordPress plugin process, where basically the only thing keeping you safe is the wisdom of crowds.
Stefan Seiz
on 08 Feb 10And that is precisely the reason I can’t like the iPad. I’d love to like it, but as it is Appstore only and the Appstore will surely not change until march, I’ll pass on this and instead invest in an SSD and a MacBook Pro to stick it into and load it with “free” software. What a shame and shortsighted move from Apple. They sure make a truckload of cash with the fuckingappstore now. And that is the saddest thing. The consumer votes pro this mess. Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits… Think different. Yes, indeed.
DHH
on 08 Feb 10Larry, I’m saying the trade-off isn’t worth it. Imagine the web if you had to ask someone for permission before you published a new website? Imagine OS X if you couldn’t release without asking permission. Both would be very unappealing places to developers.
I develop for the web in large parts it requires permission from no one. And I think the victory of the web shows that this turns out to work just fine.
Michael Moncur
on 09 Feb 10Unfortunately, the app store as a single software source makes gatekeeping essential.
If you open the gate for free apps, thousands of malware apps appear. Apple would never keep up with them.
If you open the gate for paid apps, thousands of scam apps appear (they look like great apps, you pay, and then you realize some or all of the features are missing.)
The difference with a truly open platform like the web or android is that the gatekeeping happens another way – You have to find the apps, and google and other sites decide what’s worth linking to and what isn’t. There’s no central place that feeds you an instant list of new apps.
The influx of ungated apps can also make Apple and their app store look bad. Finding good apps would be even harder.
So as long as the app store is the sole distribution channel for apps, they need gatekeeping.
Robert Mugande
on 09 Feb 10I for one hope Apple promotes the App Store idea for all their platforms, including OS X. It has proven to be a far superior method of finding and installing software, totally unique in the industry and head and shoulders above everything else out there.
Keep in mind that the primitive idea of “freedom” you are espousing is a two edged sword in that the more “freedom” you give end users, the less usability you have for everyone, rendering that “freedom” effectively moot. Look at Linux for example, it gives end users total “freedom” to do anything they want, and it is an utter and complete disaster of an operating system. Both technically inferior and (more importantly) a usability wreck. Windows is only slightly better because while Microsoft exerts proper control over the source code to their operating system, they don’t exert enough control over the hardware it runs on, so there are still too many choices for end users and thus vectors for poor usability.
At the end of the day, Apple has found the best way to deliver consistent and usable hardware and software to end users: total control. yes there are some problems with the approval process for applications, but I am sure they will work to improve the bottlenecks. The issues you have now are sure to get better as time goes by and as a long time Mac user and iPhone fanatic, I am more than willing to be patient with them as they fix them.
Tony
on 09 Feb 10I think it’s important for apple to do a basic review of their apps, just to weed out the worst of them and the most blatant malware. Concrete5 CMS is now doing something similar for their marketplace where they set up a “peer review board”, so other developers can take part in the approval process. It’s a good approach since it catches more problems (since more eyes are on each submission), holds all the released packages to a pretty high standard, and it moves the process along quicker.
Jay Godse
on 09 Feb 10The App Store is dead! Long live the App Store. Why?
Google Voice is now a browser app on the iPhone. And why not? HTML/CSS/Javascript + HTML5 Storage is all you need as long as you have enough horsepower to run voice on the iPhone processor with Javascript.
Now combine all of that with the open source jQTouch javascript library that emulates the iPhone user interface. What do you get? A web app that looks like an iPhone app, but without the gatekeepers & approvals.
David K
on 09 Feb 10Another Android lover here. Android Market requires no approval from Google…just a quick fee, and its published.
Are there crap apps? Heck yes! But its really not that hard to ignore them. And most of the good apps on the iTunes App Store have already been released on the Android Market.
A lot of people think Android is gonna take over and dominate the iPhone’s market share. I don’t think it will be that drastic…but if Apple doesn’t respond to Android, I think they’ll be in a world of hurt. The App Store vs. Market is one good comparison. The openness in general of the Android system is another…but that’s for another blog…
Jeff
on 09 Feb 10I have to agree with Robert above. I love the app store. The web is great but the iphone’s browsing capabilities are the same OS X essentially. And you also have to sift through tons of dreck to find a diamond in the rough.
At the end of the day people want an intuitive device with great usability that is stable and reliable.
Now most of the people here are probably developers or hackers and may whine about the lack of freedom to get their product out their but I know tons of people who have made more money independently off of iphone apps than they ever have developing applications for “open” systems.
Robert
on 09 Feb 10You’re right!
This is not a new opinion.
Andy
on 09 Feb 10David, your three bullet points are bogus, because you don’t have a baseline to compare it to. Surely you’d have more malware crashy fart apps if there was NO review process ?
People forget that Apple has a laser-like focus on one thing, and one thing only: the end user experience for the normal user. They absolutely do not care if that means upsetting every developer and geek on the planet – they are focussed on the other 99% of the human population.
Tomas Jogin
on 09 Feb 10First of all, I don’t see how anyone here, not DHH either, could possibly know how much better the quality is due to Apple’s approval process — we don’t see the stuff they reject, therefore we don’t know how much better the accepted stuff is than the rejected stuff. We have absolutely no idea.
Secondly, how can you claim that the approval process is comprised of a “ten minute look-over by a clerk” (insinuating both that it’s just a quick glance and that the “clerk” doing the inspection is technically unqualified) while at the same time claiming it takes too long? Do you really have insider information about how the approval process works?
Thirdly, the process is clearly stopping malware — since there isn’t any (disprove this if you can, please). This could be because the people approving apps are actually finding and preventing malware from hitting the store — or it could just be because every app in the AppStore leaves a paper trail; there are no anonymous app publishers. If you release malware, it’s got your name on it, and maybe this is why nobody bothers with malware at all. Doesn’t matter which, the approval process is in fact stopping malware from getting on your iPhone.
I don’t even want to get into if the process is “worth it” or not, because you’re not even offering a logical argument.
Anonymous Coward
on 09 Feb 10I can only imagine the outcry (from developers, developers, developers) if it was the Microsoft App Store..
Terry Sutton
on 09 Feb 10I’m not sure people even care. Sure they’re likely to care more by virtue of the fact that they’re iPhone and/or Mac users, but people having been unknowlingly using absolute garbage for years and years. I have arguments all the time with people who say that Windows 7 is the new Jesus.
I find that the only people who really care are the kind of people who visit places like this.
Grover Saunders
on 09 Feb 10I’m not sure how I feel about the approval process. On the one hand, you are correct that it isn’t doing much to ensure quality apps. I too am disappointed by the sheer volumet of schlock in the app store. On the other hand, do we really want Apple refusing more applications for taste reasons? Are you arguing that this would be better?
And on the subject of malware I’m going to disagree completely. They clearly do have some method of determining if the application makes undocumented API calls since that’s a common reason for rejection. But when someone inevitably does sneak some malware through it can be instantly pulled from the store, cutting it off before it can reach any kind of critical mass (I know I encounter folks catching malware from vulnerabilities that were patched years ago on a weekly basis). And while I’m sure someone will one day relish the challenge, just having to go through the process of submitting an app probably discourages a lot of malware development ($100 seems like a lot to pull a prank that won’t get very far). At minimum you’d have to falsify your identity (so that Apple couldn’t pass your contact info on to the authorities). Again, none of this makes it impossible, but it does put up some sizable barriers that make it a LOT less likely.
@Jay Godse Slightly Off Topic: Google has done a great job for the most part with the HTML 5 Google Voice. But, as with every product they make, Google has made one absurd choice that makes it a pain to use and causes me to give up on it. In the case of GV, it’s failing to store the interface itself locally so that you have to launch the browser and wait for it every time you make a phone call. Even over WiFi it’s a few seconds, which makes me lean on the built-in dialer for quick calls, defeating the whole point of having Google Voice. It’s clearly possible for them to store it locally (the example of Pie Guy proves you can built an app that is stored 100% locally that doesn’t even appear in the list of browser windows), so I’ve no idea why they went this route unless it was just to make it work on other devices too (which makes no sense since they went to the trouble to develop a native iPhone app in the first place). And it will probably never be fixed. Hell, you still can’t apply labels in mobile Gmail! Okay, I’m done.
JP
on 09 Feb 10I’ve been an iPhone dev for over a year. I think the app approval process is awful.
I think Apple could easily fix this. My solution is this: You earn a trusted developer status after six months of having an approved app in the store. You then put $1000 in escrow. You sign an unconditional agreement that if your apps are malware, scammy, etc Apple can revoke your license. Additionally, the $1000 would provide insulation for chargebacks and prevent scammers from joining.
Thoughts?
David Andersen
on 09 Feb 10@JP – something like that is a good idea.
Dave Peele
on 09 Feb 10I don’t frequent the App Store due to the fact that I do not own an Iphone or Ipod Touch, but I have to say I agree with David’s reasoning here. Too often companies make processes painful on the front-end for little to no reason in order to guard against something that rarely happens. Sometimes it is best to test the waters and make necessary reactions instead of making things a pain in the butt for everyone!!
DVN
on 09 Feb 10it’s “lose” goddammit!
Jake Coventry
on 09 Feb 10You can make an app and sell it in the biggest online software store in the world with millions of willing customers and zero store overheads…. and you are STILL moaning!??
Take this analogy:
If I made cakes from my home and I wanted to sell them in Tescos or Wal-Mart I wouldn’t have a hope in hell!
Even if I did they would want to know a lot about me, the exact ingredients, my financial status, my commitment, my suppliers, my staff count.. they’d want to taste, prod, destruct…everything. Why? They need to make sure that everything that gets sold in their store, from cheap tinned goods all the way up to premium products is of the quality the customer expects from their brand.
It just so happens that Apple has a lot of brand value which they do not want any potential rouge developers tarnishing. (much like poisoning your customer with a dodgy cake!).
Imagine the press fall out if a virus replicates across iPhones, or the store become littered with scam apps. They would have a field day! To stop this from happening they have to annoy a few developers who don’t realise how good they’ve actually got it.. then so be it!
I think the approval process needs to be improved, but going for a totally open system would be suicide for Apple..
Todd Sieling
on 09 Feb 10Agreed on some points, but the notion that the approval process leads to ‘only good stuff’ in the store conflates quality (objectively measurable) with value (subjectively measurable). You and I could look at an issue about quality (bugs, crashes, UI efficiency) and agree, while disagreeing on value (does this fart app really need to exist).
Shawn
on 09 Feb 10The defenders of the App Store policy use a few other (non)-arguments you didn’t mention. To wit:
1. Apple has always been closed, and Steve Jobs has always been a control freak, but it’s precisely because of this that Apple has had such a track record of quality and success.
2. The iPhone and the App Store are actually awesome. Seriously, the thing is sweet, and there are like a gazillion apps for it. Stop whining!
3. It’s really AT&T’s fault (mostly limited to topics like tethering and MMS)
It all comes down to how you think of the iPhone. If you see the iPhone essentially as a pocket computer – something that fits in the same category as a Macbook, then it’s hard to disagree.
In the Steve Jobs eras (both of them) however, Apple has treated all of their products – even the real workhorse computers – like consumer electronics devices. Many iPhone customers have followed suit. They see their iPhones as something more akin to an iPod than a Macbook, and they have no expectation of openness.
Brian C
on 09 Feb 10As usual with articles about Apple, this post is completely lacking balance. Two points:
+ Your “stability isn’t improved because I know of apps that crash” is clearly just silly. Likewise your “malware isn’t eliminated” argument. The existence of apps that crash or apps that include malware doesn’t prove there’s no effect—it just proves that Apple’s review isn’t absolute.
+ The people talking about multi-week review periods haven’t kept up to date on the issue. The vast majority of submissions are now seeing 24-hour turn arounds.
Apples system is far from perfect—but it HAS been consistently improving.
DHH
on 09 Feb 10Brian, this exact post was brought on my the fact that updating Ember has taken about 11 days. This was an existing, already approved application that just needed a bug fix.
DHH
on 09 Feb 10Another argument I see propping up over and over is that because the iPhone is doing well, the App Store process must be fine. Or even worse, that the iPhone is doing well because of the App Store process. Complete hogwash.
The iPhone is not killing it because there are only 100 fart apps instead of 300. Or because we have to wait 11 days on bug updates. Or because apps are being rejected willy-nilly from silly, inconsistent reviews. It’s killing it in spite of all this.
It doesn’t have to be take it or leave it. You can like the iPhone and still wish for it to be better. You can be a fan of Apple and still wish for their processes to improve.
Adam
on 10 Feb 10This is Apple. Great products, great ideas. Don’t try to teach Steve Jobs how to make a business!
torrancew
on 10 Feb 10Perhaps I’m overstepping (probably am), but I side with Adam on most of his points. I see the “need” for a gate-keeping process, but find the results dismally disappointing. There are plenty of worthless apps, many of which claim to actually be work 0.99-4.99 of my money. There are plenty of buggy apps that do not function that well, and there are plenty that, in my mind, are not far removed from malware.
I also disagree with Robert, though not completely on his points, more on his examples. Specifically, the statement: ‘Look at Linux for example, it gives end users total “freedom” to do anything they want, and it is an utter and complete disaster of an operating system. Both technically inferior and (more importantly) a usability wreck.’ As a Linux user, developer and sysadmin who works for a Mac consulting firm, I’d have to say that Linux is far from a disaster of an operating system, and the statement about it being technically inferior is just plain misinformed. Linux powers a large portion of things you interact with on a day-to-day basis – your TiVo, as well as the (arguable) majority of the internet (LAMP stacks, my friend) included. Even OS X is not far removed, being based on a BSD variant, but what is more important is this: Linux runs so many devices, and on so many devices because of its open nature. Porting it to different processors (like the ARM in your iPhone) is much easier than with a closed kernel, as you gain access to people who are very good at that type of thing, and often willing to help for free. The openness also helps Linux take over your TiVo without you realizing what you see. It’s open, and easy to tailor for an ‘appliance’ type device. Furthermore, the repositories of any package-manager-based Linux distro, in many ways accomplishes what the App Store only hopes to. These repositories are digitally signed, and provide me with an equally seamless mechanism to download, search, upgrade and remove software, and over the past several years, I’ve gotten to the point where I cannot imagine using an OS without one (I couldn’t survive my job without Mac[/Darwin]Ports). At the end of the day, freedom, contrary to what so many avid Apple fans I’ve met seem to believe, is not a bad thing. False freedom, similar to the type of I-drink-the-koolaid beliefs I’ve seen too many times, can be.
Side note – I recently switched out my company-loaned iPhone 3G for a Nokia n900, and have fallen in love.
Sean Iams
on 10 Feb 10I saw you added the new “star” feature to Campfire. I like it.
I wish you had the opposite feature: A mechanism to mark a post as “noise”.
I work in campfire every day, and there is some very valuable communication that happens there. Some of it is quite pertinent to my job, and some of it is noise that only serves the purpose of maintaining a spirit of humor in the workplace. Humor is extremely valuable, but sometimes it gets in the way of focused problem-solving communication.
If there was a button in campfire that could turn noise “on” and “off”, it would make it a lot easier to catch up on the backlog of technical an business communication that happened throughout the day.
Stefan Seiz
on 10 Feb 10I don’t buy the “thousands of malware apps would turn up” argument. Apple can keep on doing whatever they want with their Appstore. BUT they should allow Developers to sell their Apps however they want(on the web, on Floppy…), like it is done on Mac OS X. Then it is the users responsibility to think for a minute before he installs an app, just like it is on Mac OS X right now. And where are the thousands malware apps for Mac OS X? Apples Argument for not allowing sales outside the Appstore was the dangers of malware on a cellphone. I call Bullshit on this especially with regard to the iPad which isn’t a phone at all.
John B
on 10 Feb 10I’m an iPhone developer. For the most part, I’m happy with the way the App Store works. Granted, when the default approval time was 2 weeks there were days that I didn’t hold such a magnanimous outlook, but now that most of my apps are getting approved in somewhere between 24 and 96 hours, I don’t have much noise to make.
Another side of the approval process—I was once working on a small team making an app for a client that was rejected for a serious crash bug in a hardware and configuration setup that we hadn’t tested. Totally our fault, but the App Store approval folks both found it for us and alerted us to it with enough technical information to make fixing it easy, saving us from having an embarrassing bug go live. For free. Of course not all app rejections are for such good reasons, but I’m sure this isn’t the only time something like this has ever happened.
Now, I’m not saying the process is perfect by any means, but it’s already not bad, and I’m confident its going to get better as time goes by. Apple is making a killing, and while I think DHH is right that to some degree it’s despite the approval process and its attendant annoyances, it would be insane for them to just say “screw it” and open up the floodgates.
Borat
on 10 Feb 10Профессиональная раскрутка сайта в Москве в кратчайшие сроки. Финансовые гарантии результата, бесплатный аудит для потенциальных клиентов, подбор запросов, индивидуальный подход! Нужно раскрутить сайт – доверься профессионалам.
david reeves
on 10 Feb 10I agree with many of the points many have made about malware. I have two main comments:
1. Before the app store, getting apps on a smartphone was either techie and painful - very few did it - or required months of expensive business development with a recalcitrant carrier. The app store changed all that, and I think we need to recognize its benefits along with its flaws.
2. I also think that there’s some benefit in slowing developers down, forcing them to bucket upgrades and test things more thoroughly than they might otherwise. Remember, this isn’t a web app—every time developers release a new executable, everyone has to go download and update the thing on their devices. Each time, there’s a cost to me in terms of my attention… and ultimately, I as a user don’t want to think about that any more than I have to.
None of this is to say that the app store is perfect—far from it, and I think apple could have done a much better job communicating their goals. But once you really think things through, makes more and more sense.
Marc-Olivier Vachon
on 11 Feb 10If apple is willing to bet that trade-off is going in the right direction, I bet they have strong reasons to do so (because Steve Jobs and his team are probably more intelligent and have more info that I do). However, I think your arguments are spot on.
This discussion is closed.