[Bobapple]

I'm guessing there's going to be a shift, and reasonably soon, to a position somewhere near the middle of the extremes presented here today. There is a glut of apps for the iphone and touch and they vary from really incredibly good and cost effective to, well, a serious waste of time and money.
Apple has part of the equation right, IMO. Don't clog the store with crap, pay attention to the quality of the apps and protect the brand. (I don't think a lot of users differentiate between the app and the device - if it sucks, it reflects on the iPhone or touch).
In the case of MailWrangler, the app doesn't support editing - a major feature for the very users that wold find the app most useful - and Apple cited that as one of the reasons for not approving it.
I'm also curious whether there's pressure coming from within Apple's inhouse software development to ensure that apps don't outperform native software - giving them a chance to update features before the app gets in the store and shows them up.
As a user, i want Apple to vet the stuff that goes through that sales portal - I can't tell you how many Windows apps we bought that worked fine and then went down the toilet or didn't work at all, because no one was making sure they were tested extensively.

[matthew1234]

I'm developing an app and please Macworld, when it's (possibly) published write a review so I can fix problems. It will show your friends within 10 miles. Is that duplicating the Maps built-in app?

[heisetax]

Finally someone that see's things the same way I do. You said it in a much more concise way.

[jragosta]

"Of course they do. But for you to get there it has to be true that the App Store is nothing but one of a number of publishing companies. In the publishing world if an author is unhappy with a publisher, he or she goes to a different publisher. Where exactly do you propose developers of iPhone software go?"

Duh. Windows Mobile. Blackberry. Android. Symbian. Or make their own phones.

Apple has a tiny piece of the market. If you don't like their rules, no one is forcing you to develop for iPhone.

[jragosta]

No, it's not the same thing.

What you're describing is the way it's supposed to work. If you don't like the product or service, you don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, the supplier eventually changes their product or service. If the supplier is good at understanding the market (as Apple clearly is), the supplier will be right more often than not. If the supplier is bad at understanding the market, they will be forced to change frequently - and eventually go out of business.

If most developers like the product/service/terms, they make great software for the device and the device thrives. If enough developers do NOT like the terms, they stay away and develop for another platform, instead. (If Apple had a monopoly on smart phones, it might be different, but that's clearly not the case).

I have absolutely no problem at all with that. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening here.

What's happening here is that a small number of people (aided by the Apple-bashing press) are trying to force Apple to do something that they don't want to to. All the legal challenges, talk of antitrust, etc is trying to circumvent the market. The posts I've been arguing against assert that Apple needs to be FORCED to do something that is not consistent with their business plan. A tiny number of developers (apparently considerably less than 1%) tried to violate Apple's rules, got caught, and started stirring up a huge controversy in order to try to force their will on Apple. That's just plain wrong.

[mdelvecchio]

yes, because macs & pcs are now only know as "porn devices".

right. its just sex folks, get over it.

iTunes Store is able to categorize content just fine (violent movies, sexy movies, etc). no reason App Store couldnt do the same.

[Macalways]

I wonder how many of the millions of kids' parents would love the idea that the App store had porn available for their iPods?

[technolawyer]

{quote:title=jragosta wrote:}
What's happening here is that a small number of people (aided by the Apple-bashing press) are trying to force Apple to do something that they don't want to to. All the legal challenges, talk of antitrust, etc is trying to circumvent the market. The posts I've been arguing against assert that Apple needs to be FORCED to do something that is not consistent with their business plan. A tiny number of developers (apparently considerably less than 1%) tried to violate Apple's rules, got caught, and started stirring up a huge controversy in order to try to force their will on Apple. That's just plain wrong.{quote}

Well, it took until page 9, but jragosta finally nailed it. 108 comments may seem like a lot, but it's not and this issue is a non-issue -- though I will give the spurned developers credit for some excellent public relations lobbying with the likes of Jason Snell and other Mac pundits.

I think MacWorld is an excellent publication, but has anyone else noticed that it suffers from group think on editorial issues? The podcast in particular is a snooze because no one ever disagrees. If I were Jason, I'd steal away a writer from Roughly Drafted to provide some balance to his editorial team. Look at the New York Times as a prime example. Its op-ed page features columnists from the left, middle, and right -- and two of them (Brooks and Collins) now debate each other on a blog. That's what MacWorld needs instead of its current editorial sameness.

[Kontra]

> I'm arguing that they simply SHOULD open it up because it would be good for iPhone sales.

[/quote]

Because, obviously, you know better than Apple what's good for iPhone sales. Because, obviously, these rules are completely "draconian" and "arbitrary". After all, what does the company who created the iPhone know anything about promoting the sales of its products!

[Kontra]

> Apple isn't always right, you know.

[/quote]

I do. But if I have to make a choice, I'll take Apple.

> According to Apple, web apps were just fine, and they didn't need to open up the iPhone to third party applications at all. What changed?
[/quote]

You have absolutely no evidence what Apple's plans were with respect to
the timing and roadmap of iPhone development. None. You make up facts
and then weave whole cloth and convince yourself.

> Something called customer demand.
[/quote]
Nonsense. Customers have spoken loud and clear, to the tune of 100+ million App Store downloads, in favor of Apple's curatorship of the Store.
It's a very small minority of developers and pundits trying to browbeat Apple. This isn't the first time. If Apple followed all the advice given to it by the pundits, there would be no iMac, iPod, iTunes Store, Apple Stores, pro-apps, etc.

I, for one, am glad that Apple's not inclined to commit hara kiri by inviting direct competition to its core products on the iPhone or diluting brand equity by turning it into a "warehouse."

[Bobapple]

You raise a good point - remember when Jobs dropped the floppy drive? All hell broke loose in terms of 'consumer demand'. Time tells us he was right, consumers were wrong. Same thing with the Air - "Can't work " the pundits cried. Then they sat back and realized a huge chunk of the market wants to go in exactly that direction, technology-wise. I don't think the Air is perfect, but (especially with a solid state drive), it's getting there.
I'm curious whether the developer of Mail Wrangler has rewritten the app to allow editing of accounts - I'm betting he does. And I'm betting of he does that, Apple has a different perspective on the other issue. All these things aside, Apple has to get its act together - they made a bunch of mistakes with the App Store and MobileMe that have, in my opinion, bruised the brand.
BTW - am I the only customer that only sees 89 pages of apps on the store, instead of the 192 there were the day before yesterday?

[Glenn_Fleishman]

Kontra said:

It's a very small minority of developers and pundits trying to browbeat Apple. This isn't the first time. If Apple followed all the advice given to it by the pundits, there would be no iMac, iPod, iTunes Store, Apple Stores, pro-apps, etc.

I, for one, am glad that Apple's not inclined to commit hara kiri by inviting direct competition to its core products on the iPhone or diluting brand equity by turning it into a "warehouse."

I know we're on page 43 of comments, or something, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Jason's article and most of what developers are saying--I've talked to and listen to dozens of them who have released major software, some of it dating back nearly 15 or more years.

If Apple produced a definitive list of product types and characteristics that they would not approve--"any program that downloads podcasts," for instance--I would say developers and pundits wouldn't per se be happy, but they would accept that's Apple's commercial decision for better or worse.

But that's not what Apple is doing. Apple is apparently making ad hoc decisions with ad hoc text that provides no certainty to anyone investing money in programs that don't duplicate the functionality of software already released by other developers that their program will be approved, even if it fits within all the generally known parameters set by Apple.

Stop characterizing this as whining and trying to make Apple change. This is nearly entirely about consistent, clear promulgation of rules. Then developers can choose to develop or walk away, instead of live in the kind of business paralysis that some other companies are typically accused of causing.

[Kontra]

> {quote:title=I}{quote}f Apple produced a definitive list of product types and characteristics

[/quote]

For the last time, Apple is not going to list in writing what products it is working or or targeting. No sane lawyer would allow a "a definitive list of product types and characteristics" to be published to the whole world and thereby handicap a company's product road map. Do you not understand this?

[Glenn_Fleishman]

Kontra said:

> {quote:title=I}{quote}f Apple produced a definitive list of product types and characteristics

>

For the last time, Apple is not going to list in writing what products it is working or or targeting. No sane lawyer would allow a "a definitive list of product types and characteristics" to be published to the whole world and thereby handicap a company's product road map. Do you not understand this?

Went and read it. It's not really a rebuttal of my point.

The NDA has proven enforceable. Apple releases information under NDA to developers sometimes a year or more ahead of time (although sometimes keeping juicy OS X release information until the last minute).

Despite some leaks and some information coming out early, Apple is able to use its NDA as a tool to communicate its intent to developers.

So you're flatly wrong. Apple doesn't have to communicate its entirely future product road map in a complete, open, and ruinous manner. Nor do they have to provide same under NDA.

Rather, they can communicate specifics about current products (how is banning podcast capturing applications somehow signaling Apple's future direction? They have a podcasting program; podcasts are already captured and playable on an iPhone), and general attitudes about future stuff, JUST AS THEY DO TODAY, just as they've been doing for years and years.

Their lawsuits and threats have been effective in some cases, not in others, in reducing the flow of information. But leaks haven't seemed to sabotage their ability to do business, because they clearly engage in making and releasing products in a manner that can't simply be duplicated, even given a year's lead time and greater resources. (HTC/Google's G1 is clearly a year behind the iPhone in design and OS maturity, and the OS is now a few years old, and HTC has been making handsets for many years. They'll get there, but it requires more market time.)

My point here is that Apple can say: No programs that do the following: download and manage podcasts; allow alternative music purchasing with or without DRM from a store; offer video playback capability; allow photo-editing; etc.

And none of this handicaps them, and it makes it predictable for developers.

If Apple can't communicate this under NDA to its smartest partners, then what good is the iPhone developer program?