Apple axes iPhone apps that simply reproduce Web content
Following reports that Apple began rejecting App Store software with "minimum user functionality," the iPhone maker has now set its sights on applications that employ a "cookie cutter" formula.
As detailed by TechCrunch, Apple has recently started cracking down on submissions to the App Store that are just "basic applications." These apps are "little more than RSS feeds or glorified business cards."
"In short, Apple doesn't want people using native applications for things that a basic web app could accomplish," the report said.
The issue has primarily been with iPhone applications built with "templates" that are available from a number of software generating services. Medialets CEO Eric Litman said the change in policy plays into Apple's desire to control the user experience.
"Apple wants iPhone apps to be superior to Web experiences because they are extremely sticky and drive people specifically to buy the iPhone over competing smartphone platforms," Litman said. "Apps that are too simple or largely indistinguishable from the Web, other apps or particularly other apps on other platforms send the message to end users that the iPhone app ecosystem might not be particularly special."
But the report noted that Apple has also worked with developers like Appmakr, which helped to make content from The Atlantic available as an application, to add features like in-app purchases, instant notifications, offline access and more.
It's yet another change in policy for Apple regarding the App Store. Last week, some developers said the company began removing applications the Cupertino, Calif., handset maker felt provided "minimum user functionality," such as one that simply quacked like a duck.
Apple also removed software it felt contained content that was "overtly sexual," resulting in a purge of more than 5,000 applications from the App Store.
In addition, a number of Wi-Fi scanners were also recently removed from the App Store, though they allegedly relied on unpublished APIs within the iPhone OS software development kit, breaking the terms set forth by Apple for developers.
As detailed by TechCrunch, Apple has recently started cracking down on submissions to the App Store that are just "basic applications." These apps are "little more than RSS feeds or glorified business cards."
"In short, Apple doesn't want people using native applications for things that a basic web app could accomplish," the report said.
The issue has primarily been with iPhone applications built with "templates" that are available from a number of software generating services. Medialets CEO Eric Litman said the change in policy plays into Apple's desire to control the user experience.
"Apple wants iPhone apps to be superior to Web experiences because they are extremely sticky and drive people specifically to buy the iPhone over competing smartphone platforms," Litman said. "Apps that are too simple or largely indistinguishable from the Web, other apps or particularly other apps on other platforms send the message to end users that the iPhone app ecosystem might not be particularly special."
But the report noted that Apple has also worked with developers like Appmakr, which helped to make content from The Atlantic available as an application, to add features like in-app purchases, instant notifications, offline access and more.
It's yet another change in policy for Apple regarding the App Store. Last week, some developers said the company began removing applications the Cupertino, Calif., handset maker felt provided "minimum user functionality," such as one that simply quacked like a duck.
Apple also removed software it felt contained content that was "overtly sexual," resulting in a purge of more than 5,000 applications from the App Store.
In addition, a number of Wi-Fi scanners were also recently removed from the App Store, though they allegedly relied on unpublished APIs within the iPhone OS software development kit, breaking the terms set forth by Apple for developers.
Comments
I totally support everything this company thinks is the right thing to do.
Nice to know the RDF generators are working at full power south of the equator...
i guess all that's out the window now...but interested to know how much of this is an affirmative step away from the criteria used to approve submissions originally/previously.
you'd think it wouldn't be too difficult to review things like whether an app simply recreates an inferior web experience, or is simply a regurgitation of an app that exists on another platform...even whether a given app's code is particularly out-of-bounds with respect to leveraging unpub'd APIs.
did somebody just wake up this morning in cupertino and decide to lay the hammer down? you'd think these kinds of objections would've come up against more of a hurdle to begin with... what were they evaluating if NOT this kind of thing? what was driving the publishing delay we'd hear developers complaining about, then?
Everything we've accused the Windows ecosystem of in terms of marginalizing the Mac has been reversed with the iPhone. For stuff that doesn't need to be iPhone-proprietary the developers should instead create web apps and be free to sell them as they wish. This will also reduce the number of complaints (not to mention the workload of vetting) that people have of the App Store's policies.
Not only that, those that really need some sort of app to view porn can, and always have been able to, get them outside of the App Store. The buying public just has to be made aware that there are more channels for things than the 'fascist' (etc.) App Store. Let's move on from these tired arguments.
...such as one that simply quacked like a duck.
Poor duck, he thought he really had a career going too.
Maybe this will mark a tighter focus on app/widget quality rather than quantity.[/CENTER]
There are a lot of Mac OS X widgets that are little more than RSS feeds wrapped up in a pretty interface too. But those are okay. Hmm. Anyway. Whatever.
that's on the computer. not the iphone which has more limited screen space etc.
look at even the 'widgets' Apple put on the phone. their stock app, their weather app, both allow you to select several cities/stocks. in one interface, to store your choices and retrieve updates when you wish. Compare this to a company that makes a weather app where you have to download one copy for Los Angeles, One for New York etc. cluttering up as much as a whole screen with your weather apps. double sucks when you have to pay for each one.
a number of the porn apps that were cut were this type of app. same interface but only a single model. 99 cents a pop. even without the T&A that stunt sucks.
Um...I wish I knew that they were gonna remove the duck quacking app...damn...it's too late to get it now :-(
Here ya go:
http://new.wavlist.com/soundfx/011/duck-quack1.wav
(That'll be $9.99 please.)
I completely agree and support Apple's decision on this. These apps cheapen the iPhone brand. I daresay that 160,000 apps is too many when trying to wade thru and find anything useful on the App store.
Couldn't agree more... let's weed the CrapApps out of the store and encourage developers to produce apps that are innovative, creative, and (dare I say) useful.
I completely agree and support Apple's decision on this. These apps cheapen the iPhone brand. I daresay that 160,000 apps is too many when trying to wade thru and find anything useful on the App store.
The problem is how the apps are displayed in the App Store and online at Apple's web site.
In the App Store in iTunes, there are only 20 icons per page with no description, rating or other info, just a name which isn't enough. It takes about 10-15 seconds to load a page of 20 apps, then another 10-15 seconds to find out more about a app and another 10-15 seconds to load the previous page.
It takes too darn long to review the apps in iTunes and the reviews are terrible and incomplete because of that reason.
On Apple's web site there isn't the layout for apps like there is for widgets and hardly any apps are listed.
Apple needs to adopt the Versiontracker spreadsheet like style of displaying apps, a name a short description and only display the app icon when people reach the main page, not beforehand which slows things down considerably.
Good move.
On a different note, good sign for anyone buying apps. Bad sign for people making them this is the opposite of a free Market with fair competition.