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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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:
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?
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?
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:
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! **
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 ?
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.
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?
Exactly, I have the same feeling. Why Apple delivers Jail-broken Mac OS X ? Fix it in 10.7 !!!
Comments
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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
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.
http://www.last100.com/2009/01/14/wh...on-the-iphone/
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?
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! **
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.
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?
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?
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.
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 ?
"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.
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?
Exactly, I have the same feeling. Why Apple delivers Jail-broken Mac OS X ? Fix it in 10.7 !!!