[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

>(as noted in the RDM article)

John Gruber, with his usual candor, takes issue with that article. I think he's right on target (as do several people who commented on the article).

[natmusak]

@ Dan Moren and Chris Breen, who said:

Chris Breen said:

John Gruber, with his usual candor, takes issue with that article. I think he's right on target (as do several people who commented on the article).

I like the Daring Fireball and I even emailed Gruber about that post, which compares Pandora and AOL Radio to Podcaster, which really doesn't work because those simply stream audio, they don't bypass iTunes, downloading the audio to the iPhone itself, as Podcaster does. NetNewsWire and other RSS readers allow for podcast streaming, yet they're not being rejected. That leads me to believe Daniel Eran's take on the issue.

I didn't mean to imply my interpretation of the iPhone Constitution is the law of the land. :D I look forward to DED's rebuttal and who knows, maybe Apple will speak up if that's really necessary (on the Podcaster issue; I think the review process will become faster and less opaque in the near future).

[Chris Breen]

Another view of the RDM piece.

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

Another view of the RDM piece.

I saw that one too, which also brings up radio apps, which only stream audio, unlike Podcaster, which downloads podcasts to the iPhone, bypassing iTunes.

[Chris Breen]

[quote name='natmusak']
>

Chris Breen said:

> Another view of the RDM piece.
I saw that one too, which also brings up radio apps, which only stream audio, unlike Podcaster, which downloads podcasts to the iPhone, bypassing iTunes.

And also brings up several other salient points that knock holes in the author's argument.

[Kontra]

"Some developers demand Apple try to communicate better, lest they assume the worst of the platform vendor. While that sounds plenty reasonable at face value, given the curatorial demands on the fledgling state of the App Store platform and Apple's overall reliance on product-plan secrecy, we shouldn't realistically expect Apple to 'open up' anytime soon," as I explain in:
Resolved: Apple is right to curate the App Store
http://counternotion...9/15/app-store/

[benroethig]

Kontra said:

"Some developers demand Apple try to communicate better, lest they assume the worst of the platform vendor. While that sounds plenty reasonable at face value, given the curatorial demands on the fledgling state of the App Store platform and Apple's overall reliance on product-plan secrecy, we shouldn't realistically expect Apple to 'open up' anytime soon," as I explain in:

Resolved: Apple is right to curate the App Store
http://counternotion...9/15/app-store/

So, developers should just blindly follow Apple's lead? Let's get real here. Software development is a business with the ultimate goal in most cases to either make money or as something to ad to a resume as to add money. If you're going to put the time and resources in to develop an app, you expect a chance for a return on that investment. If Apple wants to succeed with the iPhone long term, they need to change and open up. If there are no developers there is no platform.

[waveracr]

Excellent article. Apple's management of the application approval process could certainly be improved (especially for apps that have already made it and are simply being upgraded), but the cries over not enough openness (and some of the developer hysterics) are silly and overheated.





Resolved: Apple is right to curate the App Store
counternotions.com/2008/09/15/app-store/

[ChopinBlues]

I'll say it again: this is a tempest in a teapot. There are currently around 3500 apps on the store. Let's see, maybe 5 have been rejected, at least 2 for perfectly valid reasons, leaving 3 that are at best questionable, which means that less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT have been rejected. And you want a developer revolt over that?!!?? Get real.

[alderete]

Daring Fireball has written it up best:
The App Store’s Exclusionary Policies:
http://daringfireball.net/2008/09/appstoreexclusion
Things That Podcaster’s Rejection From the App Store Is Not about:
http://daringfirebal...sters_rejection
The basic thesis: There are secret, Apple-only criteria for rejecting applications, and this existence is already causing a chilling effect on iPhone application development. I.e., there are already developers turning away from the (otherwise exciting) iPhone platform, because Apple is rejecting applications based on secret criteria.
Yes, Apple has the right to deny any application. But in the end, this will cripple the platform, because serious developers cannot take the risk that Apple will kill their investment, based on criterial that are unknowable in advance.

[Dan Moren]

ChopinBlues said:

I'll say it again: this is a tempest in a teapot. There are currently around 3500 apps on the store. Let's see, maybe 5 have been rejected, at least 2 for perfectly valid reasons, leaving 3 that are at best questionable, which means that less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT have been rejected. And you want a developer revolt over that?!!?? Get real.

If you think this is just about quantity, then you're missing the point. But if you are thinking about quantity, let's put it this way: sure, there are around 3500 apps on the store.

How many of those are actually worth buying? Or, in the case of free apps, even downloading?

If even one developer who makes worthwhile apps is willing to stop developing for the platform, then that's something worth thinking about. If several developers are pointing out flaws in the way Apple is doing things, then isn't that something worth thinking about?

I'm curious to know why people are so opposed to the idea of Apple's process being more transparent. What do they stand to lose by doing that?

[alderete]

As others have written, yes, Apple can reject anything they want, for any reason they want.

But, as written up best by Daring Fireball, that's going to cause a chilling effect. There are already developers who are turning away from the iPhone platform because of this.

Whether Apple is "allowed" to reject applications is beside the point. The point is, in the long run, will the iPhone platform thrive when Apple has secret criteria for rejecting applications?

If I was considering creating an application for the iPhone platform, I would stop work immediately, until I got a written statement from Apple that it would not be rejected. If I was a potential investor in an iPhone developer, I wouldn?t invest without a written statement from Apple saying that the application was not out-of-bounds. If I was the venture capitalist in charge of the iPhone Fund, http://www.techcrunc...e-applications/, I would not invest in a single new company until I got Steve Jobs himself to sign on the line that in-development applications would be OK.

That iPhone Fund sounds really pretty in a press release, but no investor with any sense is going to be willing to fund development in the current climate, where there is no recourse if you get rejected, other than to re-appeal to Apple, who rejected you in the first place.

Yes, it's within Apple's right. But it's not good for the platform, which means it's not good for Apple, for customers, or for developers. In the long run, this is toxic, a platform killer.

[Kontra]

bq. "I'm curious to know why people are so opposed to the idea of Apple's process being more transparent. What do they stand to lose by doing that"
I cited a number of reasons why Apple would be reticent to fully disclose reasons for every rejection in my piece above:
Resolved: Apple is right to curate the App Store

[Kontra]

bq. If I was the venture capitalist in charge of the iPhone Fund, http://www.techcrunc...e-applications/,] I would not invest in a single new company until I got Steve Jobs himself to sign on the line that in-development applications would be OK.no investor with any sense is going to be willing to fund development in the current climate

Funny. Kleiner Perkins just launched the [iFund blog today. Not to announce that they were closing it due to Apple's "draconian"app rejection policies, but to embrace the platform. Apparently, the investor of $100 million is willing to fund.