or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple exec offers glimpse into App Store approval process
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple exec offers glimpse into App Store approval process

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
As criticism of Apple's approval process for the iPhone App Store has persisted, company executive Phil Schiller has participated in an interview to defend the current system.

Schiller, the senior vice president for Worldwide Product Marketing at Apple, spoke with BusinessWeek just weeks after high-profile developer Joe Hewitt gained headlines for abandoning the iPhone. Hewitt said that he thought Apple could be "setting a horrible precedent for other software platforms" by mandating that all software be reviewed and approved.

In defense of his own company, Schiller said that the approval process guarantees a certain level of quality within the App Store. With about 10,000 applications submitted every week, he said Apple's important but difficult role is to ensure that the software available for download works as consumers would expect.

"We've built a store for the most part that people can trust," he said. "You and your family and friends can download applications from the store, and for the most part they do what you'd expect, and they get onto your phone, and you get billed appropriately, and it all just works."

The Apple executive went on to provide some insight into the approval process. He said that about 10 percent of rejections are due to inappropriate content, while the other 90 percent represents "technical fixes" for bugs and similar issues. And a small number of applications fall into a gray area where Apple is unsure what to do: One example was software that helped people cheat at casinos, which forced the Cupertino, Calif., company to study state and international laws.

Copyright issues also exist, as the development company Rogue Amoeba's recently publicized frustrations pointed out. Apple rejected the company's Airfoil application because it used pictures of products like the Mac and Apple TV.

The new interview isn't the first time Schiller has come out in defense of the App Store. This summer, he began personally e-mailing developers to respond to their concerns as bad press surrounding the App Store continued to mount.

Apple also recently added a feature to its Developer Center Web site that adds some transparency to the status of submitted applications. Developers can see where their application is in the review process through nine status levels including "in review," "ready for sale," and "rejected."
post #2 of 54
...doesn't care for corporate reasons really. He/she will abandon it when/if a more open platform comes around. People still write more software for Windows in spite of all the issues with viruses, etc... Schiller makes some good points, but Apple needs to redesign its developers' business model before other platforms/companies exploit this. I can't even load my own apps on my own phone without a hassle.
post #3 of 54
One major differentiating factor between Apple and other platforms is the quality of the experience. I'd hate for Apple to open up the platform more thereby lowering the quality level.

Personally I'd rather see Apple raise the quality level perhaps by increasing the price of entry - e.g. maybe they should make the developer program subscription $1,000 not $100.

Btw, yes I have had apps rejected (and passed) - where rejected it was my own fault not Apple's.
post #4 of 54
>> Btw, yes I have had apps rejected (and passed) - where rejected it was my own fault not Apple's.

Maybe this is why you are biased. Try having a few apps rejected when it wasn't your fault.
post #5 of 54
Despite the issues, it's a wild, runaway success. The iPhone is THE platform to develop for.
post #6 of 54
I truly dislike the App Approval process. Although it may keep things more stable (though in some cases not really), I do not agree in the Apple censorship (I'm not talking about porn apps) and I wish that I could use what ever Apps I want without the risks of jail breaking. I don't mind paying for apps, I just want to be able to use what I want. (This is the main reason I'm in the market for a different mobile platform instead of my iPod Touch)

This being said, I feel that if Apple wants to be fair to its developers, and to its customers, then it should open an App Store for the Mac OS X (aka: computer) platform. ALL software would have to go through the App Store process before being allowed onto the computer, then digitally signed. Any non-apple signed software would fail to run. This would eliminate any last bit of malware, increase stability of the OS, cut out redundancy with the OS core features, give customers a one stop shop for all their OS X needs, and make sure all Apps are built as best as possible (finally, we'd have a functioning Adobe Flash Player!) and have a built in testing for all OS X apps! OS X developers would have to shell out $1,000 or more to have their apps reviewed, tested, and released via the App store.

Makes sense to me, perhaps something we'll see in 10.7? If you think its a bad idea, then why is the iPhone App Store approval process a good idea?
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #7 of 54
Apple really should improve this aspect of the iPhone.

The only comparable vetting model like this is the way console games are vetted by Microsoft and Sony. The developer pays for the testing process, and the rigorous testing is thorough and consistent.

The Apple model is anything but.

Much of the technical testing of applications could be done by an automated testing procedure.
If this could be done within Apple, the same test procedure could be available to developers.

The process simply does not make sense.

When any web-based application can access objectionable content on the Web, what is the point of vetting applications for content? Let developers classify their content by age - and then only test applications which are for children.

At the moment, it is not really helping Apple, it's not helping developers and it is not helping customers.

C.
post #8 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

I truly dislike the App Approval process. Although it may keep things more stable (though in some cases not really), I do not agree in the Apple censorship (I'm not talking about porn apps) and I wish that I could use what ever Apps I want without the risks of jail breaking. I don't mind paying for apps, I just want to be able to use what I want. (This is the main reason I'm in the market for a different mobile platform instead of my iPod Touch)

This being said, I feel that if Apple wants to be fair to its developers, and to its customers, then it should open an App Store for the Mac OS X (aka: computer) platform. ALL software would have to go through the App Store process before being allowed onto the computer, then digitally signed. Any non-apple signed software would fail to run. This would eliminate any last bit of malware, increase stability of the OS, cut out redundancy with the OS core features, give customers a one stop shop for all their OS X needs, and make sure all Apps are built as best as possible (finally, we'd have a functioning Adobe Flash Player!) and have a built in testing for all OS X apps! OS X developers would have to shell out $1,000 or more to have their apps reviewed, tested, and released via the App store.

Makes sense to me, perhaps something we'll see in 10.7? If you think its a bad idea, then why is the iPhone App Store approval process a good idea?

Oooh, this was a clever trick. You had me thinking about this issue in terms of OS X, but then you pulled the curtain back and you were really talking about the iPhone the whole time. Well played sir. As an avid and forthright supporter of Apple and the closed iPhone app ecosystem let me just say...thanks for opening my eyes. I now completely agree with you.

Let's tear down the wall of oppression that Apple erected when they launched the app store! Woo hoo!
post #9 of 54
I am an iPhone developer myself and have submitted to the App Store.

This is good news to my ears, I welcome the improvements they are trying to bring about.
My biggest complaint however is how slow the process is. Approving apps should take days or a week instead of months. They are on the right track by trying to automate this process. Make the process faster please !

Another thing to tackle is how the review of an App works. Negative reviews can kill an app prematurely and it is too easy to discredit an app from a competitor. It happened to me. The developer should have a way to respond to false allegations.

As for people complaining that the iPhone is not an open platform well just wait until Android get its first porn/virus or any other crap that comes with being open and not having a gatekeeper. At a certain point, Android will have its share of controversy too and I bet you it will be worse.

I think Apple fundamentally understands that they need to keep developers happy to ensure that the iPhone remains a vibrant and dominant platform. Hopefully, they learned their lesson from the windows era. The bottom line: improve the dev. tools, improve the process and make sure the developers can earn a living out of it. Open source is fun and all but it does not pay the bill...

So here is an idea: Apple should implement its own ad service in the wake of Google buying AdMob. Google will use AdMob to increase the number of free apps on the Android platform because they can win the numbers game and compensate the developers at the same time.
Apple, it is time to go into the ad business. But this is another topic...
post #10 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein View Post

...doesn't care for corporate reasons really. He/she will abandon it when/if a more open platform comes around. People still write more software for Windows in spite of all the issues with viruses, etc... Schiller makes some good points, but Apple needs to redesign its developers' business model before other platforms/companies exploit this. I can't even load my own apps on my own phone without a hassle.


They'll abandon it when a more open platform comes around???

If that were true then Linux would be the most dominant OS on computers which it isn't. They'll (the developers) will abandon it if it becomes unprofitable to create apps.

Then you contradict yourself when you use your "Windows" argument. Windows is not an open OS. The reason people develop for it is because it is the dominant computer OS. If you've got a good app your guaranteed to make money if you make a windows version simply because Ms has captured 90% market share.

Schiller's point is that Apple has created an environment with the iPhone/iPod touch and the app store which eliminates all of the virus and functionality problems you see with the Windows environment at the cost of a small mount of control on the users end.

Your "hassle" doesn't really matter. It's only the insignificant hacker community that gives a crap about jailbreaking their phones. The majority of iPhone/iPod touch users aren't interested in installing jail-broken apps on their device. As long as that stays true and Apple continues to rapidly grow their market share you will be SOL my friend. Go live in the Android world and stop bitching to people who are happy with their devices and that don't really give a crap about your individual problems.
post #11 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein View Post

...doesn't care for corporate reasons really. He/she will abandon it when/if a more open platform comes around. People still write more software for Windows in spite of all the issues with viruses, etc... Schiller makes some good points, but Apple needs to redesign its developers' business model before other platforms/companies exploit this. I can't even load my own apps on my own phone without a hassle.

I think you're extrapolating your own preferences into those of "customers" in general.

It's just not true for instance that customers in general care about "openness." This is a concern of developers, techies, probably yourself etc. but not "customers" unless like Microsoft does, you consider your customers to be corporations and developers.

You talk about your inability to load your own apps on the iPhone without a hassle, without seeing the obvious which is that the average customer doesn't make apps and doesn't need to do that. This is another "developer concern" not a customer concern. It's also not really a concern for developers because of course you *can* test your own apps on your own iPhone quite easily, you just have to pay a tiny bit to be part of the developer program. This is all completely reasonable and normal.

Your issues are the issues of a developer and Apple doesn't actually make products for developers (although they are very nice and very accommodating in general to them). Apple makes products for real live consumers, the average end user is their focus.

If as a developer, you had the same focus, you'd make better software, and you wouldn't really be that upset about a few restrictions on the iPhone and app store because you would see the reasoning behind it.
post #12 of 54
of course, you can pay apple to have the key to sign and you can do ANYTHING YOU want on YOUR iphone (or any iphone you sign)

it's not that expensive, you can use all apple tools, and tweak YOUR iphone with ANY software you create.

you are NOT force to use the app store for your own software on your own iphone. you can hack.

You are free to hack, tweak, break your iphone. Your iphone is your iphone.


-
well, I would like apple to give free private-use certificate, with no access to the app store, for people for their own device. it would be free, no hotline, no app store, just you and your iphone and whatever binary you sign.

Some people would sign anything and have virus ? too bad for them. Some people would sell software to courageous hacker knowing how to sign their binary ? good for them.


People who don't want to hassle with all of that will use the good official and clean store : the apple app store.

it would be nice.


For now, it's important to admit than hack and openness are a developer concern.

For end-users, the point is moot : there are softwares.
post #13 of 54
Interesting to hear someone weasel out of explaining censorship.
post #14 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

I truly dislike the App Approval process. Although it may keep things more stable (though in some cases not really), I do not agree in the Apple censorship (I'm not talking about porn apps) and I wish that I could use what ever Apps I want without the risks of jail breaking. I don't mind paying for apps, I just want to be able to use what I want. (This is the main reason I'm in the market for a different mobile platform instead of my iPod Touch)

This being said, I feel that if Apple wants to be fair to its developers, and to its customers, then it should open an App Store for the Mac OS X (aka: computer) platform. ALL software would have to go through the App Store process before being allowed onto the computer, then digitally signed. Any non-apple signed software would fail to run. This would eliminate any last bit of malware, increase stability of the OS, cut out redundancy with the OS core features, give customers a one stop shop for all their OS X needs, and make sure all Apps are built as best as possible (finally, we'd have a functioning Adobe Flash Player!) and have a built in testing for all OS X apps! OS X developers would have to shell out $1,000 or more to have their apps reviewed, tested, and released via the App store.

Makes sense to me, perhaps something we'll see in 10.7? If you think its a bad idea, then why is the iPhone App Store approval process a good idea?

Here are the problems with that. World wide the Mac market share is maybe 2% which is still just a blip on the radar. Apple doesn't have the leverage to force this on the Mac community (MS does and it would probably benefit windows much more). It would probably destroy app development on the mac if they tried this. Which brings me to my next point. this malware problem you speak of simply doesn't exist with OSX the way it does with windows.There have been no known viruses/worms on OSX. Third, you'd force users to expend their bandwidth to download large apps to their computers.

That being said I can see Apple incorporating more security elements into their future releases of OSX which would force developers to make their Mac software more security savy especially since they hired a security expert that specializes in this type of technology.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ed_critic.html
post #15 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post

Well played sir.

I believe you mean "Ma'am"
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #16 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Interesting to hear someone weasel out of explaining censorship.

People like you seem to throw the word censorship out there like some blind guy pissing in the wind. You toss it out there and wait to see if it hits anything and when it does the hilarity ensues. I sure would like to hear you explain it... because I really think you can't.
post #17 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimpymw View Post


Schiller's point is that Apple has created an environment with the iPhone/iPod touch and the app store which eliminates all of the virus and functionality problems you see with the Windows environment at the cost of a small mount of control on the users end.

Your "hassle" doesn't really matter. It's only the insignificant hacker community that gives a crap about jailbreaking their phones. The majority of iPhone/iPod touch users aren't interested in installing jail-broken apps on their device. As long as that stays true and Apple continues to rapidly grow their market share you will be SOL my friend. Go live in the Android world and stop bitching to people who are happy with their devices and that don't really give a crap about your individual problems.

You could make Schiller's point with computers in general (which the iPhone is). I can write and load anything I want under Cocoa without any hassle and distribute any and all of it over the Internet to whomever would like it. That's what I mean by OPEN. Not true of Cocoa Touch though. The very fact that Schiller would take time to do this interview indicates Apple's not unconcerned with the situation. If Android reaches a critical market share (and Google doesn't miss many markets), Apple has few choices. It rules the roost at the moment for a stellar product, but if they adapt your attitude about not really giving a "crap about individual problems", they'll start a slow, but solid decline. People swap out in this business a lot sooner than with OS platforms. Can you imagine Schiller saying something like "Go live in the Android world and blah blah blah..." publicly? But that's what some developers, good ones, are feeling...and doing. They need to listen. Security and efficiency aren't mutually exclusive. We do it with Cocoa and the Internet all the time. As for me, I do intend to keep my options open and watch the Android platform and market in the coming years.
post #18 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimpymw View Post

People like you seem to throw the word censorship out there like some blind guy pissing in the wind. You toss it out there and wait to see if it hits anything and when it does the hilarity ensues. I sure would like to hear you explain it... because I really think you can't.

Plain and simple:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10394265-17.html

and

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

there is no other explanation for it.
And that's just one example of many rejected apps that Apple deems inappropriate. If that's not censorship- what is?
post #19 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein View Post

You could make Schiller's point with computers in general (which the iPhone is). I can write and load anything I want under Cocoa without any hassle and distribute any and all of it over the Internet to whomever would like it. That's what I mean by OPEN. Not true of Cocoa Touch though. The very fact that Schiller would take time to do this interview indicates Apple's not unconcerned with the situation. If Android reaches a critical market share (and Google doesn't miss many markets), Apple has few choices. It rules the roost at the moment for a stellar product, but if they adapt your attitude about not really giving a "crap about individual problems", they'll start a slow, but solid decline. People swap out in this business a lot sooner than with OS platforms. Can you imagine Schiller saying something like "Go live in the Android world and blah blah blah..." publicly? But that's what some developers, good ones, are feeling...and doing. They need to listen. Security and efficiency aren't mutually exclusive. We do it with Cocoa and the Internet all the time. As for me, I do intend to keep my options open and watch the Android platform and market in the coming years.

"What some developers?" Please reference.
post #20 of 54
Look whiners (Hewitt)....Apple has the upper hand in the interest of putting out great products. It's awesome that they even support a development community as such with quality assurance!. Let Hewitt go jack up some other OS. What we're talking about here is "Ego" vs. a Quality Control Process.
post #21 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasein View Post

...doesn't care for corporate reasons really. He/she will abandon it when/if a more open platform comes around. People still write more software for Windows in spite of all the issues with viruses, etc... Schiller makes some good points, but Apple needs to redesign its developers' business model before other platforms/companies exploit this. I can't even load my own apps on my own phone without a hassle.

So go get a different #1 smartphone and use their app store with 100,000 apps. I'm so tired of this argument, its like placating children. This is Apple's way. If you don't like it, you have every necessary freedom to pursue something else.

AKA your opinion on Apple's approval process is entirely worthless unless you speak with your wallet /thread
post #22 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

Makes sense to me, perhaps something we'll see in 10.7? If you think its a bad idea, then why is the iPhone App Store approval process a good idea?

Extremely simple. People simply do not afford the same degree of caution to a phone or mobile device, as they do a computer. Mobile is about "quick" and "easy" information and communication at your finger tips. When's the last time you saw a EULA for all your installed applications on your iPhone? Android let's apps do almost ANYTHING, as long as the user "approves" the behavior. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of iPhone owners jailbroke their iPhones... then APPROVED the process of installing SSH... and then promptly allowed themselves to be exposed to the iPhone's first WORM by not changing their root password. Smart, huh? Few people warned the neophytes, but see how quickly those who know call the poor victims fools for not reading the fine print.

Worst... unlike their desktop computer, where information can be saved in a number of places... a background process on your phone only needs to observe your activity on ONE browser, upload ONE universal contact list to their remote location, deal with ONE SMS portal through which they can infect other phones, and any number of other convenient exposure points. If you want "open", go for an Android phone... and when the social-engineered security issues catch up with Android and not iPhone, don't pretend no one saw it coming.

~ CB
post #23 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

I believe you mean "Ma'am"

No, I didn't. Certainly not at the time as I had no indication of your gender. Of course it just sounds better with 'sir'. it just rolls off the tongue better than ma'am.
post #24 of 54
Okay here's another one of my .02 on the whole App Store issue...

As many know I'm not a huge fan of Apples heavy handedness WRT the approval process, mostly due in part to the fact that if it's not blessed by Apple then the App simply dies never to become available to anyone. Yes I know some have gone underground with their apps and anyone with a jail-broken phone can get many apps that normal iPhone/iPod Touch users are blocked from using...

However many developers like Google wouldn't sink to those depths to get their application to the public (as much as I'd love to see em do it)... A more polite solution might be as follows:

Apple creates a way for developers to self-package an app that they wrote and users would then have to visit the developers site to have the application installed and for Apple's peace of mind some type of disclaimer would be presented to the user telling them of all of the potential ILLS that could be thrust upon them if they proceed in installing this rogue application.

This would solve a lot of problems.

- Developers would have the freedom to develop any application they wanted
- Users who had enough interest in the app would seek out the developer to download/buy the app.

The down side is this:

- Developers wouldn't benefit from the enormous audience that the App Store brings with it.
- Developers would have to handle their own payment system

But the major solution is this, developers could be free to develop what they want and how they want without Apple putting them under the microscope and users would have the ability to use Applications that Apple would have previously rejected.

In the end I think we should ALL pressure Apple into moving into this direction...

Most developers will STILL use the App Store as the first and best method of providing their works to the iPhone consumers and only if/when Apple and the developer can't come to terms would they resort to self-distribution. I mean lets be realistic ... I can't think of any developer who would NOT want their App on the App Store if Apple would bless them with an approval.

Since I'm willing to bet that Apple and AT&T might have some language that requires all iPhones to only get apps thru the official App Store this type of compromise might have to wait until that contract ends but in short I sure think it would be a good compromise.

Unless Apple is really as drunken-with-power as some tend to believe.

The bonus for Apple... They will not be held responsible for software not provided by the Official App Store and users who choose to download apps not distributed by Apple would need to remove said apps before anyone at Apple would consider looking into a problem with the device and the user would be on HIS/HER OWN if they installed an app that the cellular provider objected to and in some way penalized the user for using...

Also Apple would know full well that the Average Joe isn't likely going to seek out non-App Store apps as a general rule so the 'fear' of 'customer confusion' shouldn't be an issue.
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #25 of 54
I'm surprised Apple haven't taken a more hands on approach in terms of controlling the actual quality of apps though - there are some truly horrendous ones out there. Maybe some guidelines or a non-butchered version of the Nintendo seal of approval would work - either that or a minimum price. Right now, the app store is full of cheap apps, a lot of which are crap.

Cleverboy lives up to his name by being right here. Way too much sensitive and easily accessible information on a phone. It'll get even worse as smart phones become more advanced, especially seeing as there are emerging banking apps.
post #26 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by oomu View Post

I would like apple to give free private-use certificate, with no access to the app store, for people for their own device. it would be free, no hotline, no app store, just you and your iphone and whatever binary you sign.

If everyone had a free developer certificate, that would be essentially the same as letting developers distribute software independent of the app store. It would just provide a slightly worse user experience, since users would have to run a script on their computer to compile and install.

If Apple were going to do that, they might as well just let users install 3rd party non-app-store software at their own risk, alerting them that it hasn't been vetted by Apple. I assume at some point soon they'll actually start doing that.
post #27 of 54
In principle the Apple App Store cert. process has a place but they totally fucked up with the part of giving them exclusive right to arbitrarily deny fully working, well behaved, apps that replicates functions in their own pre-installed suite. In fact I hate Apple for this attitude and wish the competition would smack Apple big here!
A lot of the built in apps on iPhone are crap, and I would love to replace them. The worst is the Safari browser. It slow and stupid, navigate back does not work well. In total browsing and really reading on the iphone is a lot slower that with other phones. The whole browsing experience on iPhone is crap.
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankzero View Post

In principle the Apple App Store cert. process has a place but they totally fucked up with the part of giving them exclusive right to arbitrarily deny fully working, well behaved, apps that replicates functions in their own pre-installed suite. In fact I hate Apple for this attitude and wish the competition would smack Apple big here!
A lot of the built in apps on iPhone are crap, and I would love to replace them. The worst is the Safari browser. It slow and stupid, navigate back does not work well. In total browsing and really reading on the iphone is a lot slower that with other phones. The whole browsing experience on iPhone is crap.

i have two other internet browser apps on my iphone 3GS that I use
post #29 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankzero View Post

In principle the Apple App Store cert. process has a place but they totally fucked up with the part of giving them exclusive right to arbitrarily deny fully working, well behaved, apps that replicates functions in their own pre-installed suite. In fact I hate Apple for this attitude and wish the competition would smack Apple big here!
A lot of the built in apps on iPhone are crap, and I would love to replace them. The worst is the Safari browser. It slow and stupid, navigate back does not work well. In total browsing and really reading on the iphone is a lot slower that with other phones. The whole browsing experience on iPhone is crap.

Actually they let you make web browsers and sell them on the app store. You obviously didn't check the app store before posting this. Then you turned into a troll at the end of your post...
post #30 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As criticism of Apple's approval process for the iPhone App Store has persisted, company executive Phil Schiller has participated in an interview to defend the current system.

If you haven't done so, it would be prudent to read the entire interview, that is Business Week: Apple's Schiller Defends iPhone App Approval Process.* AI take is just too censored of what it references and as a consequence it just proliferates innuendos that certain commentators seem to hang their vile assertions on.

However, I would also offer some criticism to the Business Week Article, e.g., the author states, re the need for a smartphone gatekeeper, "I'd argue that overall we're better off without Microsoft or Apple or some other organization approving software applications before they're released to the market."

And for this he evidences this with, "PC users have learned to be careful about what they put on their computers through unhappy trial and error." Now who is he kidding?

It would be interesting to have the entire transcript of the interview. I would wager that even that has been prostituted in the media's favor.

*http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...120_354597.htm
post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

Actually they let you make web browsers and sell them on the app store. You obviously didn't check the app store before posting this. Then you turned into a troll at the end of your post...

Actually, it was one of the first things they taught us how to create at the iPhone Developer programming seminars.
post #32 of 54
These are not new browsers, just new gui on the browser component! They are crap and have all the same problems as safari. And if you believe someone can teach you to create a browser on an iphone seminar you have not understood what consitues to create a browser. My point is Apple just cannot take the competition and will user there hold om App Store market to force feed users ther food. This is not a new discussion:
http://www.last100.com/2009/01/14/wh...on-the-iphone/
post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

And for this he evidences this with, "PC users have learned to be careful about what they put on their computers through unhappy trial and error." Now who is he kidding?


*http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...120_354597.htm

But that's my point. It's difficult to say that's NOT true regarding Apple apps (not iPhone apps). They can be written and distributed freely without 'gatekeeping' or vetting. The fact that there are 100,000 apps and most are useless brings into question what is it you're accomplishing by way of protecting: the customer or the business model?
post #34 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankzero View Post

These are not new browsers, just new gui on the browser component! They are crap and have all the same problems as safari. And if you believe someone can teach you to create a browser on an iphone seminar you have not understood what consitues to create a browser. My point is Apple just cannot take the competition and will user there hold om App Store market to force feed users ther food. This is not a new discussion:
http://www.last100.com/2009/01/14/wh...on-the-iphone/

LoL... and for ONLY $599 more I can also teach you how to develop a "Movie Player" that plays all the popular formats**



** Provided said movie format is supported in QuickTime and or supported by a freely downloadable QuickTime plugin... Your milage can an will vary. This is not offer to buy or sell in any regions where the buying or selling is illegal... Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil... Do not shred or spindle and removal of this tag is a federal offense! **
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Okay here's another one of my .02 on the whole App Store issue...

As many know I'm not a huge fan of Apples heavy handedness WRT the approval process, mostly due in part to the fact that if it's not blessed by Apple ......


I think you have a few valid points there in your argument. What it reminded me of was signed versus unsigned drivers with XP. You can still install an unsigned driver (with administrative rights), but you are barked at by the OS a few times before it's final.

Maybe Apple could set up a rejected category, and warn you not to install for the reasons listed in the rejections. They could still flat out deny you access to apps that pose blatant security risks or that just plain run like crap, but give you access to apps that "duplicate functionality", for example. That would solve a lot of these headaches.
post #36 of 54
Carniphage: "At the moment, it is not really helping Apple, it's not helping developers and it is not helping customers."

Well, I'd say that Apple's iPhone sales, iPhone profits, iPhone share of the market, number of developers writing for the iPhone, number of apps in the store and number of apps downloaded would indicate the opposite. On what information do you base your statement?
post #37 of 54
Quote:
the approval process guarantees a certain level of quality

Very arguable. I think the app store approval guidelines are very strict on some things and way too lenient on others. Some consistency would be nice. The thing that annoys me (and I'm sure many app store consumers) is the mass duplication of applications, simply changing the name slightly, or giving the app a different colour or background each time. There are some persistent offenders.. Look at "Alain Fernandes" for instance - over 100 applications on the App Store, looking closer at the apps, most of them are duplicates with minor changes. For instance all these reversi games are essentially the same app, with slightly different graphics:

a Reversi Lux
a Reversi Sport
Fun Reversi
a Reversi ?
Pumpkin Reversi
Doodle Reversi
a Cupcake Reversi
a 8 Reversi
a Fruit Reversi
Pearls Reversi
Birds Reversi
a Bugs Reversi

Given that the approval process is there, as a consumer I expect Apple to be stopping this sort of thing. Why allow devs to fill the store with rubbish and duplicates and prevent others from submitting apps for the most trivial of reasons?
post #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiltedGreen View Post

Carniphage: "At the moment, it is not really helping Apple, it's not helping developers and it is not helping customers."

Well, I'd say that Apple's iPhone sales, iPhone profits, iPhone share of the market, number of developers writing for the iPhone, number of apps in the store and number of apps downloaded would indicate the opposite. On what information do you base your statement?

Okay,

Obviously the iPhone has been the most successful mobile device for applications by far....
And also the App store has been the best mechanism for the distribution and selling of applications.

The current system has many benefits.
It is affordable for small developers, and the iPhone platform (and consumers) is protected from malicious software.

BUT

I would argue that the system could be improved which would benefit customers, developers and Apple.

Here's why.

Apple are losing the good faith of developers due to frustrations about the Apple store.
Apple can probably live without that good faith, but if it was restored, I think Apple would benefit.

Developers are deeply frustrated for good reasons. The App store submission process, is inconsistent, it is slow, and lacks transparency. The way apps can become invisible on the App store can be very unfair.

Customers could also benefit if the system was changed. Customers wait too long for minor bug-fixes. The app store can make finding applications very difficult.

These are the changes I suggest.

1) Mechanise as much of the app submission process as possible. And make the automated test systems available to developers. Developers could test apps for robustness and technical compliance without formal submission.

2) Allow developers/publishers the opportunity to pay for a fast-tracked submission.

3) Improve the app store to allow better previews of the app. Including video content.

4) Improve the app store to allow paid advertising from publishers who want to pay.

5) Abandon all attempts to filter software for adult content /taste /decency. The built in Safari app can access all that stuff on the internet already. So why bother? Only make content checks on child rated software. Change the terms of service to say that Apple are not responsible for content in NC17 apps.

6) Apply all submission criteria with consistency.

7) Apply all submission criteria with transparency.

8) Publish targets for submission speed. Give developers a decision date at submission. Your place in the queue is. Developers can pass this to customers.

9) Incentivise developers to improve software by offering a paid upgrade option. The Tweetie2 issue was ludicrous.

I could go on...

I think the App store success has taken Apple by surprise and some of the problems are a by-product of that success.

But the success is not a reason to leave things as they are. Stuff is broken and needs fixing.

C.
post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpatric View Post

Very arguable. I think the app store approval guidelines are very strict on some things and way too lenient on others. Some consistency would be nice. The thing that annoys me (and I'm sure many app store consumers) is the mass duplication of applications, simply changing the name slightly, or giving the app a different colour or background each time. There are some persistent offenders.. Look at "Alain Fernandes" for instance - over 100 applications on the App Store, looking closer at the apps, most of them are duplicates with minor changes. For instance all these reversi games are essentially the same app, with slightly different graphics:

a Reversi Lux
a Reversi Sport
Fun Reversi
a Reversi ?
Pumpkin Reversi
Doodle Reversi
a Cupcake Reversi
a 8 Reversi
a Fruit Reversi
Pearls Reversi
Birds Reversi
a Bugs Reversi

Given that the approval process is there, as a consumer I expect Apple to be stopping this sort of thing. Why allow devs to fill the store with rubbish and duplicates and prevent others from submitting apps for the most trivial of reasons?

Patrick, try to learn with the fact the world is the wild place filled with multiple copies of Reversi, that are only slightly different. With proper training and deep breathing, you can handle it. Or should we introduce the law anyone who thinks about another copy of Reversi gets executed ?
post #40 of 54
I just read the interview in full and this is easy the worst part of it :

"We've had inquiries from governments and political leaders asking us what we were doing to protect children from inappropriate content Thats #1 reason why such behavior shouldn't be tolerated."

If Apple gets by and is successful, we can see other parties - and the government - that's the most sad part of it, to implement it everywhere, not just apps. It is censorship in the worst way. Joe Hewitt is right. The solution is easy. They can have their "sercure" AppStore, only they should make it legal to install any other software on your own device if you wish. The same way Android does it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple exec offers glimpse into App Store approval process